John Paul Roesler et al. v. Sully's Restaurant et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE

Amica Mutual Insurance Company, defendant in Petersen v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., no.   KNL CV 12 6014316, has moved for consolidation of that case with this case, Roesler v. Sully's Restaurant, Inc., no.   KNL CV11 6010676S.   Petersen v. Amica Mutual is an under-insured motorist case arising out of a September 17, 2010, vehicle collision.   Roesler v. Sully's Restaurant, Inc., is a dram shop/liquor service case claiming damages pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 30–102 and common law from that same collision.

“Whenever there are two or more separate actions which should be tried together, the judicial authority may, upon the motion of any party or upon its own motion, order that the actions be consolidated for trial.”  P.B. § 9–5(a).¹

Factors on the present motion include, but are not limited to, whether the allegations are substantially similar;  see Groth v. Redmond, 24 Conn.Sup. 467 (1962);  whether the suits arise from the same event or events;  see Clarke v. Orchart, Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Docket no.   68018 (April 13, 1993, Higgins, J.) (8 Conn. L. Rptr. 609);  whether granting the motion will cause injustice or prejudice to the non-moving party;  Rode v. Adley Express Co, 130 Conn. 274, 277, 33 A.2d 329 (1943);  and avoiding unnecessary litigation;  Rode, supra.

The motion is granted based on extensive commonality of issues, judicial economy, avoidance of inconsistent jury verdicts from two trials, and lack of significant unfairness or prejudice to plaintiffs Petersen and Roesler.   (Avoiding double recovery by Mr. Petersen is not a basis for this ruling, since the court finds double recovery could be avoided if the cases were not consolidated.)

Regarding unfairness and prejudice, this case, Roesler v. Sully's Restaurant, Inc., was consolidated with Roseler [sic] v. Vasquez, New London judicial district no.   KNL CV11 6009015S, the suit against the driver alleged to have caused the subject collision due to intoxication following liquor service by the defendants in this case.   Roseler v. Vasquez was withdrawn, but the present ruling will result in no more defendants at trial than if it had not been withdrawn.   More, contrary to plaintiffs' claim, there is a crucial motor vehicle component to this case.   The plaintiff Laurence Petersen's counts 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14, each include at least eight contested ² allegations which are substantially the same as allegations in Petersen v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co.:  in both cases, Mr. Petersen must prove the collision, causation of his injuries and the amount of his damages.³

The court finds no sound reason to require separate trials and presumably different verdicts.   The motion to consolidate is granted.

Cole–Chu, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Absent objection pursuant to P.B. § 9–5(b), notice of the motions is found proper..  FN1. Absent objection pursuant to P.B. § 9–5(b), notice of the motions is found proper.

FN2. See Answers of Richoni's Italian Restaurant & Lounge, LLC, and Dana Foltz (# 140.00 filed June 11, 2012) and of the defendants represented by Trendowski & Allen (# # 152 and 153—it cannot be told which is for which defendant—filed October 5, 2012)..  FN2. See Answers of Richoni's Italian Restaurant & Lounge, LLC, and Dana Foltz (# 140.00 filed June 11, 2012) and of the defendants represented by Trendowski & Allen (# # 152 and 153—it cannot be told which is for which defendant—filed October 5, 2012).

FN3. Count 2 is against On Ice, LLC, and Janice Connolly, permittee of Sully's Restaurant.   See Third Amended Complaint filed May 25, 2012.   Fifteen days before that date, On Ice, LLC, had been defaulted for failure to appear.   The court regards On Ice, LLC, as still defaulted.   However, Janice Connolly has not been defaulted and Count 2 is presumed still contested..  FN3. Count 2 is against On Ice, LLC, and Janice Connolly, permittee of Sully's Restaurant.   See Third Amended Complaint filed May 25, 2012.   Fifteen days before that date, On Ice, LLC, had been defaulted for failure to appear.   The court regards On Ice, LLC, as still defaulted.   However, Janice Connolly has not been defaulted and Count 2 is presumed still contested.

Cole–Chu, Leeland J., J.