Aqleh v. Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P.
10 A.3d 498
| Conn. | 2010Background
- Cadlerock sued Aqleh on a matured note and obtained a prejudgment attachment on Aqleh’s property; Cadlerock later moved to cite Aqleh as an added defendant and sought a temporary injunction to prevent conveyance or further encumbrances.
- Aqleh prevailed in the original action on summary judgment due to untimely commencement caused by service defects; Cadlerock did not release the attachment.
- Cadlerock filed a separate action seeking discharge of the attachment in 2008; Aqleh moved to discharge the attachment.
- Cadlerock then moved to cite Aqleh as an additional defendant in the original action (September 2008), which the trial court denied; Aqleh’s discharge application proceeded in the subsequent action.
- The trial court granted Aqleh’s discharge of the attachment; Cadlerock appeals asserting the motion to cite in Aqleh was an “action” under § 52-592(a) and that the injunction was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to cite in constitutes an action under § 52-592(a). | Cadlerock argues it is a new action. | Aqleh contends it is merely a motion within an existing action. | Motion to cite in is not an action under § 52-592(a). |
| Whether the denial of the motion to cite in is appealable final judgment. | Cadlerock seeks review of a ruling intertwined with the discharge decision. | Aqleh argues only the discharge ruling is final. | The judgments are appealable final judgments due to intertwinement with the discharge ruling. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied the temporary injunction to prohibit conveyance or encumbrance. | Cadlerock contends irreparable harm without injunction. | Aqleh argues no action pending; no irreparable harm. | The court properly denied the injunction; discharge was proper. |
| Whether the discharge of the attachment was proper given the status of Cadlerock’s action. | Cadlerock maintains rights by original action persist. | Aqleh asserts lack of timely action and no viable attachment. | Discharge affirmed; no viable action against Aqleh remained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Milazzo, 287 Conn. 379 (2008) (addressed service defects and statute of limitations in the original action and attachment)
- Rocco v. Garrison, 268 Conn. 541 (2004) (action commenced when process served; informs accidental failure analysis)
- Guthrie v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co., 146 Conn. 741 (1959) (denial of motion to cite in as not a final judgment—contextual relevance)
- Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 266 Conn. 12 (2003) (intertwined issues may render appealable judgments)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (final judgments and appealability framework)
- Clukey v. Sweeney, 112 Conn.App. 534 (2009) (intertwined issues permit review when appealable)
- Woods v. Lavitt, 110 Conn. 668 (1930) (motion vs. action distinction in procedural posture)