JP v. Angela D. Simpson–Manigault et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON REQUEST FOR COSTS DATED JANUARY 17, 2012 (# 197.00)

The plaintiff filed this one pleading requesting two different forms of relief, each with unique procedural requirements:  Objection to Motion to Dismiss and Request for Costs dated January 17, 2012 (# 197.00).   This court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the underlying Motion to Dismiss dated December 2, 2011 (# 193.00) and rendered a written decision of even date herewith.   The court considered the plaintiff's above cited Objection to Motion to Dismiss (# 197.00) in issuing that Memorandum of Decision.

The second portion of the above pleading has not been heard or briefed.   The last paragraph of the above mentioned Objection (# 197.00) states:  “Moreover, undersigned counsel provided a draft of this objection to counsel for the Defendants on January 2, 2012, with a request that the Motion to Dismiss be withdrawn to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of fees and costs in this matter.   To date, counsel has failed to respond ․ Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above and the lack of good faith basis of the Defendants to pursue the requested relief, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the imposition of costs as a result of the expenditure of resources with regard to this objection.” (# 197.00, page 5.)

The court has not conducted a hearing on the above stated Request for Costs (# 197.00).   Defendants' counsel who filed the underlying Motion to Dismiss (# 193.00) has withdrawn their appearance for both defendants effective December 23, 2013 (# 234.86).   The defendant, Angela D. Simpson–Manigault, had previously filed a self-represented appearance on March 26, 2013.   Her self-represented appearance is still in effect.   She did not sign the Motion to Dismiss.   The court cannot determine if the plaintiff seeks a remedy against the defendants' former counsel and/or his law firm, the individual defendant, the corporate defendant, both defendants, or one or more of the defendants along with their former counsel and/or his law firm.   The plaintiff did not brief its Request for Costs.

The court denies the January 17, 2012 Request for Costs (# 197.00) without prejudice.  State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598, 607 (2008).   The plaintiff may file a similar motion with proper service on the parties, persons and/or entities sought to be responsible for the Request for Costs.

BY THE COURT

Hon. Kevin Tierney

Judge Trial Referee

Tierney, Kevin, J.T.R.