The following document was filed in the Connecticut Appellate Court by Attorney Robert E. Wright (Juris No. 101778) of Wethersfield, Connecticut on behalf of C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC. Records of the Connecticut Appellate Court indicate that within the last ten years Robert E. Wright has filed other documents on behalf of C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC, Klewin Building Company, Inc., C.R. Klewin, Inc., Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, Southeastern Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, and Williams Associates II, LLC.
A.C. 30710
C. R. KLEWIN NORTHEAST, LLC, STATE OF
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT CONNECTICUT
v. APPELLATE COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE AUGUST 19, 2009
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Pursuant to Practice Book §§ 85-1, 66-2 and 66-3 plaintiff/appellant, C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC (“Klewin Northeast”), moves that sanctions be imposed against defendant/appellee, the State of Connecticut (the “State”) for failure to defend the instant appeal with proper diligence.
Brief history of the case:
This appeal concerns an action brought by Klewin Northeast, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-61. Klewin Northeast claimed that the State failed to make payment in full on a public construction contract. The trial court dismissed the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The instant appeal was filed on January 19, 2009. On appeal, Klewin Northeast maintains (1) that the trial court erred in holding that General Statutes § 4-61 required Klewin Northeast to give notice of intent to pursue its claim in court or arbitration, and (2) that each of two notices provided by Klewin Northeast was sufficient pursuant to § 4-61.
Specific facts on which Klewin, Inc. relies:
Klewin, Inc. filed its brief in the instant appeal on July 17, 2009. The State’s brief was due on August 17, 2009. The State neither filed its brief nor moved for an extension of time.
Legal grounds on which Klewin, Inc. relies:
Practice Book § 62-8 requires that “[i]f a document must be filed by a certain date under these rules …, the document must be received by the appellate clerk by the close of business on that day….” Pursuant to Practice Book § 63-4 (a) (2), the State was required to file its brief “within 30 days after the filing of the appellant’s brief….” The State failed to do so.
The deadline could have been extended by the Appellate Court pursuant to Practice Book §66-1 (b). However, such “[e]tensions shall be granted only upon a written motion filed with … the appellate clerk….” Practice Book §66-1 (c) (1). Such motion had to be filed “at least ten days before the expiration of the time limit sought to be extended….” Practice Book § 66-1 (c) (4). Moreover, such motion had to demonstrate “good cause,” Practice Book § 66-1 (c) (2), and had to be accompanied by a certification by the State’s counsel that such motion was sent to her client. Practice Book § (c) (1). The State met none of these requirements.
Practice Book § 85-1 provides that:
If a party shall fail to defend against an appeal with proper diligence, the court may set aside in whole or in part the judgment under attack, with costs, and direct the entry of an appropriate final judgment by the trial court, against the party guilty of the failure. If that party is a defendant in the action, the directed judgment may be in the nature of a judgment by default for such amount as may, upon a hearing in damages, be found to be due.
However, the Court may not wish to impose such a sanction in the instant appeal. The judgment that is the subject of the instant appeal is a judgment of dismissal based on the trial court’s ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. While Klewin Northeast believes that this ruling was erroneous, this Court may not wish to direct entry of judgment in Klewin Northeast’s favor before conducting a plenary review, see, Bloom v. Miklovich, 111 Conn.App. 323. 335-36 (2008), to determine whether Connecticut courts have jurisdiction over the underlying matter.
Klewin Northeast instead moves that this Court order that the appeal be considered on the basis of the Klewin Northeast’s brief and the record only. East Hartford Housing Authority v. Morales, 67 Conn.App. 139, fn. 1 (2001); Pac v. Altham, 49 Conn.App. 503, 506-07 (1998). The trial court’s memorandum of decision was extraordinarily thorough, and the record and transcripts will provide a complete basis for this Court’s review.
Respectfully submitted,
By 101778____________ Robert E. Wright
204 Maple Street
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Juris No. 101778
860/655-2799
Fax 860/885-3520
Its attorney
Certification
in accordance with Practice Book § 62-7, I certify that a copy of the foregoing Objection was served on each other counsel of record:
AAG Eileen M. Meskill
AG Transportation
55 Elm Street
PO Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141
Moreover, I certify that this objection is in compliance with all the provisions of Practice Book § 66-3.
101778_______________
Robert E. Wright
No comments:
Post a Comment