Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Alvord; Bright; Bear
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal from postjudgment rulings in family law matter; issues regarding trial court's procedural compliance with reassignment requirements
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appeal of postjudgment rulings on alimony modification and child expense reimbursement. Court found trial court's finding of defendant's consent to extend 120-day deadline was clearly erroneous and that the motion should have been reassigned to a different judge under Practice Book § 11-19.
Excerpt
The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the postjudgment rulings of the trial court modifying his alimony obligation and denying his motion to reassign to a different court the plaintiff's motion for an order seeking reimbursement from him for certain expenses of the parties' children. The defendant also challenged on appeal the trial court's granting of the plaintiff's motion to correct the court's memorandum of decision. The trial court had requested of the parties a waiver of the 120 day deadline mandated in the applicable rule of practice (§ 11-19) to issue a decision on the plaintiff's motion for an order seeking reimbursement. When the defendant did not respond to the request, a status conference was scheduled at which the plaintiff agreed to extend the 120 day deadline but which the defendant did not attend because, he asserted, he went to the incorrect courthouse. The court stated at the status conference that it would proceed with the agreement of counsel. The defendant thereafter sought reassignment of the plaintiff's motion for an order, claiming that the court had failed to render a timely decision under Practice Book § 11-19. The defendant's motion was assigned to a different court, which denied the motion after indicating that the prior court had found that the defendant consented to the extension of time. The prior court then ruled in favor of the plaintiff on her motion for an order. Held: 1. The trial court's finding that the defendant had consented to the prior court's request for an extension of time to rule on the plaintiff's motion for an order was clearly erroneous, the court having been required under Practice Book § 11-19 to reassign the plaintiff's motion to a different judge; the defendant timely filed his motion for reassignment, there was no evidence to support a finding of consent, and, although this court did not condone the defendant's failure to respond to the court's
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dants' motions to dismiss her retaliatory discharge action, which alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m). The plaintiff, while employed at a pizza restaurant owned by the defendant S Co. and managed by the defendant L, submitted a complaint to the local health district reporting unsanitary conditions at the restaurant. The day after a health inspector visited the restaurant and disclosed that the plaintiff had made the complaint, the defendants terminated her employment. The plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies available through the Department of Labor, as required by § 31-51m (c). Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's action focused on her employer's con- duct in terminating her employment following her complaint to the health district, the substance of which related to public health, not occupational safety or health. Argued September 9—officially released December 16, 2025
The plaintiff insured appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defen- dant insurance company on her amended complaint alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an insurance dispute concerning underinsured motorist benefits. She claimed, inter alia, that the court improp- erly granted the defendant's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery, as the court reasonably could have concluded that bifurcation of the claims served interests of convenience and judicial efficiency and may have negated the need to litigate certain other issues. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for an order of compliance with her discovery requests, as the defendant eventually filed a notice of compliance and the plaintiff did not allege any prejudice resulting from the defendant's delay in complying with her discov- ery requests. This court declined to reach the merits of the plaintiff's claim that the trial court erred with respect to certain legal and factual determinations, as the plaintiff failed to furnish an adequate record for review. The trial court applied a proper legal standard in ruling on the counts of the plaintiff's complaint alleging that the defendant failed to act in good faith pursuant to a provision of CUTPA and that it acted in bad faith in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the court reasonably could have concluded, in light of the evidence and the related findings of fact, that the plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the defendant had acted in bad faith. Argued October 29, 2024—officially released October 28, 2025
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's order remanding its administra- tive appeal from the decision of its human rights referee, which concluded that the defendant employer had discriminated against its former employee, M, on the basis of her disability but that M failed to establish that she had been constructively discharged. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court erred by remanding the matter to the referee without sustaining the appeal. Held: The trial court erred in remanding the matter to the referee for an amended decision while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal because, pursuant to statute (§ 4-183), there was no legal basis for the remand, as there was no ambiguity in the referee's decision that required a clarification or an articulation. The trial court should have dismissed the appeal because there was substan- tial evidence in the record to support the referee's finding that M failed to prove that she was constructively discharged. Argued October 16, 2024—officially released January 7, 2025
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.