General Linen Service, LLC v. Harp & Dragon, LLC

General Linen Service, LLC v. Harp & Dragon, LLC et al

No. KNLCV165015174S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New London, New London

August 8, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

RULING RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND/OR OPEN JUDGMENT

Robert F. Vacchelli Judge.

This case was an action by the plaintiff, General Linen Service LLC, against the defendants, Harp & Dragon, LLC and Harp & Dragon of New London, LLC alleging, inter alia, breach of contract for the supplying of towels and other supplies at defendants' pub in Norwich, CT. After the defendants were defaulted for failure to appear, and after a hearing in damages, a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $28, 386.96, plus postjudgment interest. Pending before the court is the defendants' motion to set aside and/or open judgment. Doc. No. 128.00. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

I

Motions to open judgments entered on defaults are governed by General Statutes § 52-212 and Practice Book § 17-43. The statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) Any judgment rendered or decree passed upon a default or nonsuit in the Superior Court may be set aside, within four months following the date on which it was rendered or passed and the case reinstated on the docket, on such terms in respect to costs as the court deems reasonable, upon the complaint or written motion of any party or person prejudiced thereby, showing reasonable cause, or that a good cause of action or defense in whole or in part existed at the time of the rendition of the judgment or the passage of the decree and that the plaintiff or defendant was prevented by mistake accident or other reasonable cause from prosecuting the action or making the defense.

General Statutes § 52-212(a)

The Practice Book similarly provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) Any judgment rendered or decree passed upon a default or nonsuit may be set aside within four months succeeding the date on which notice was sent, and the case reinstated on the docket on such terms in respect to costs as the judicial authority deems reasonable, upon the written motion of any party or person prejudiced thereby, showing reasonable cause or that a good cause of action or defense in whole or in part existed at the time of the rendition of such judgment or the passage of such decree, and that the plaintiff or the defendant was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from prosecuting or appearing to make the same.

Practice Book § 17-43(a)

The Practice Book further requires that any such motion be verified by the oath of the complainant or the complainant's attorney. Id.

Those provisions require " a party moving for the opening of a judgment to make a two-part showing that: (1) a good defense existed at the time an adverse judgment was rendered; and (2) the defense was not at that time raised by reason of mistake, accident or other reasonable cause." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Tsitaridis v. Tsitaridis, 100 Conn.App. 115, 119, 916 A.2d 877 (2007). Such motions are addressed to the trial court's discretion, and the action of the trial court will not be disturbed unless it acted unreasonably and in clear abuse of discretion. Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P.C. v. Cadle Co., 278 Conn. 92, 107, 897 A.2d 58 (2006). Both tests must be passed before a motion to open may be granted. Multilingual Consultant Associates, LLC v. Ngoh, 163 Conn.App. 725, 733, 137 A.3d 97 (2016); Berzins v. Berzins, 105 Conn.App. 648, 653, 938 A.2d 1281, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 932, 958 A.2d 156 (2008).

II

Based on the submissions of the parties, a review of the file, and after a hearing held on July 21, 2017, the court finds the pertinent facts to be as follows: As mentioned above, this case was an action by the plaintiff, General Linen Service LLC, against the defendants, Harp & Dragon, LLC and Harp & Dragon of New London, LLC alleging, inter alia, breach of contract for the supplying of towels and other supplies at defendants' pub in Norwich, CT. The case began when the plaintiff filed an application for prejudgment remedy with the required, proposed writ, summons and complaint at the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London on October 13, 2016. Doc. No. 100.30-34. In hand service of the papers was made on the defendants' agent for service on October 20, 2016. Doc. No. 101.00. The defendants did not file an appearance in the case. The application was granted on January 11, 2017. Doc. No. 106.01. Subsequently, the plaintiff served the signed writ, summons and complaint, again in hand on defendants' agent for service, on January 18, 2017 and the papers were returned court on January 23, 2017. Doc. No. 107.00, 108.00. The defendants did not file an appearance in the case. On February 10, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for default for failure to appear, sending a copy of the motion to the defendants at their business address. Doc. No. 110.00. The defendants still did not file an appearance in the case. A default was entered by the Clerk on February 21, 2017. Doc. No. 110.01. The plaintiff then claimed the matter for a hearing in damages. The hearing was scheduled for May 3, 2017.

In advance of the hearing, the plaintiff filed in court and mailed...