Rebecca Rainoff, Admin. v. Dennis Gisselle et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE # 152, MOTION TO DISMISS

On the eve of trial, which is scheduled to begin on January 7, 2014,¹ the defendants, Santos Muniguia and R & M Trucking Corporation, request that this court grant a Motion to Dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The parties argued the motion (# 152), the objection (# 159), and the defendant's reply (# 162) before this court on December 4, 2013.   Notwithstanding the nuanced and interesting argument advanced by the defendants;  and notwithstanding the fact that the undersigned has authored a Superior Court decision which would seem to support the defendants' arguments, this court denies the motion.

First, the court notes that there is no appellate court case law directly on point.   There are numerous trial court decisions, including the one authored by the undersigned.   But, an appellate court has yet to weigh in on this specific issue.   Second, the court notes that, even though matters of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and are not deemed waived if not pursued, this matter is ripe for trial.   The clear preference in Connecticut, is for cases to be determined on their merits, where possible.   Accordingly, all things being equal, any leaning of the court in interpreting the pleadings, the rules of practice and applicable law, will be inclined towards allowing this case be decided by the trier of fact.   Third, and finally, the court concludes that the wrong defendant statute is applicable to this action.   In the original action, Santos Munguia Hernandez was alleged to have been the negligent driver of the vehicle, in the second action Santos Munguia is alleged to have been the negligent driver of the vehicle.

The court adopts the factual recitation issued by Judge Frechette in his decision denying the plaintiff's motion to cite in.

“In the first lawsuit, the plaintiff also sued Santos Hernandez (Hernandez) and Joseph Cory Holdings, LLC. It was alleged in the first lawsuit that Hernandez owned and was driving a truck bearing the words “Crate and Barrel” in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiff's decedent when the accident occurred.   The plaintiff has alleged that this truck somehow hindered the ability of Giselle to see the decedent (or otherwise contributed to the accident) and that this alleged negligence contributed to the accident.   Hernandez filed a motion for summary judgment in the first lawsuit, as it became clear that he was not the driver of the truck in question.   The court, Licari, J., granted that motion on November 1, 2010 ․

“After summary judgment was granted in the first lawsuit as to Hernandez, on September 21, 2011, the plaintiff returned to court a second action against the “right” defendants under General Statutes section 52–593 (the “wrong defendant” statute).   This time the plaintiff sued Santos R. Munguia (Munguia) (who apparently was driving and/or owned the vehicle that is alleged to have blocked Giselle's view of the decedent) and R & M Trucking Corp. (R & M) (also alleged to be the owner/operator of that vehicle).”   Memorandum of Decision, May 24, 2013, pp. 1–2.

As noted in the decision of Judge Frechette, however inartfully drafted, the original complaint clearly alleges that the negligence of driver x (in this first case Hernandez;  in the second case Munguia) caused the plaintiff's decedent's injuries.  “The fatal injury that resulted in the injuries to and death of Mila Rainoff was proximately caused by the negligence of the operator of the “Crate and Barrel” truck in one or more of the following ways.”   2010 Complaint.   That complaint alleged that Santos Munguia Hernandez was the owner of the truck and was liable for the negligence of the driver of the truck.   In the second, 2011, action, Santos Hernandez is alleged to be the operator of the truck;  and R & M is alleged to be the owner liable for the negligence of the driver.

The court concludes that the “wrong defendant” statute applies and that this court is not without subject matter jurisdiction.   Therefore, the motion is denied.

Robinson, A., J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Although the motion is dated September 27, 2013, it was not marked ready for argument until the October 21, 2013 calendar, at which time the trial date in the case had already been continued three times, one time in October 2013..  FN1. Although the motion is dated September 27, 2013, it was not marked ready for argument until the October 21, 2013 calendar, at which time the trial date in the case had already been continued three times, one time in October 2013.

Robinson, Angela C., J.