210 Conn.App. 703
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- On March 14, 2016, Karanda and Bradford were in a car collision; Karanda sued for negligence on March 22, 2018.
- Defendant moved to compel discovery; the court ordered Karanda to comply by specific dates and to sit for deposition (ordered April 14, 2019; deposition set for June 7, 2019).
- Karanda failed to fully comply with discovery and did not appear at the ordered deposition.
- The court granted Bradford’s motions for a judgment of nonsuit and dismissed the action on July 1, 2019.
- Karanda filed a motion to open the nonsuit on October 28, 2019 but did not attach the affidavit required by General Statutes § 52-212(c); she filed an affidavit on November 7, 2019, which was outside the four-month statutory window.
- The trial court denied the motion because (1) the motion/affidavit were not timely or verified as required by § 52-212, and (2) the affidavit substantively failed to show a good cause of action or that failure to comply was due to mistake, accident, or other reasonable cause; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for opening a nonsuit judgment (§ 52-212 vs. § 52-212a) | The court should evaluate the motion under § 52-212a (general civil judgment standard) | § 52-212 governs motions to open judgments entered on default or nonsuit; that statute and Practice Book § 17-43 apply | Court applied § 52-212; appellate court agreed § 52-212 governs motions to open a nonsuit judgment |
| Procedural compliance: verified motion/affidavit and timeliness under § 52-212(c) | Karanda’s motion should be considered though affidavit was filed shortly after initial filing | Motion lacked the required verification/affidavit within four months of judgment, depriving the court of jurisdiction to grant relief | Motion denied: plaintiff failed to file the required verified motion/affidavit within the four‑month period |
| Substantive sufficiency of affidavit under § 52-212(a) (good cause/defense and excusable failure) | Karanda asserted she maintained a good cause of action and could proceed; counsel attributed the missed deposition to a notice error | Affidavit contains only bald assertions and blames counsel or nonresponsive providers; does not demonstrate a defense existed or that failure was due to mistake/accident/reasonable cause | Even if timely, affidavit was substantively insufficient: mere allegation of a cause of action and negligence by counsel do not satisfy § 52-212(a) requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn. App. 686 (2001) (upholding denial of motion to open where required affidavit was not timely filed)
- Disturco v. Gates in New Canaan, LLC, 204 Conn. App. 526 (2021) (explaining two‑part § 52-212 test: show good defense and excusable failure)
- Trumbull v. Palmer, 161 Conn. App. 594 (2015) (discussing statutory requirements for motions to open default/nonsuit judgments)
- Pachaug Marina & Campground Assn., Inc. v. Pease, 149 Conn. App. 489 (2014) (appellate standard of review for discretionary rulings)
- Moore v. Brancard, 89 Conn. App. 129 (2005) (holding that bald assertion that a cause of action exists is insufficient under § 52-212)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 203 Conn. App. 405 (2021) (describing plain error doctrine and its narrow application)
- State v. Pierce, 269 Conn. 442 (2004) (noting limits on invoking plain error when ruling is not arguably incorrect)