Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C. v. Cotrone, 178 Conn. App. 415

Plaintiff (Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C.) sued defendant (Jerry P. Cotrone) for unpaid legal fees in 2009; defendant answered and filed a counterclaim in 2010.
Plaintiff filed a request to revise defendant’s special defenses/counterclaim in October 2010; case then sat largely dormant for ~3 years.
Plaintiff filed a withdrawal of its action on September 17, 2013, then on September 19, 2013 filed a second form purporting to withdraw that withdrawal (i.e., restore the action).
No formal motion to restore was filed within four months of the withdrawal; electronic docket notation later included the phrase “erase all higher keypoint dates.”
In 2015 the court put the case on the dormancy calendar; after submissions and a hearing the trial court overruled defendant’s objection to the withdrawal-of-withdrawal and tried the case, entering judgment for plaintiff for $32,119.06.
On appeal the Appellate Court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion in restoring the withdrawn case absent a timely motion to restore and without record support for the court’s claimed electronic erasure or other action restoring the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly restored a withdrawn case to the docket without a motion to restore filed within four months	Plaintiff argued its filing withdrawing the withdrawal (and subsequent case activity and docket notation) functioned as a motion to restore and that post-withdrawal filings and the court’s later consideration of motions implicitly restored the case	Defendant argued a withdrawal is equivalent to a final judgment and restoration requires a motion to restore within four months under § 52-212a; no such timely motion was filed	Court held trial court abused its discretion: restoration requires a timely motion to restore (within four months) or clear court action; neither existed here, so withdrawal should not have been undone
Whether Rosado’s “implicit restoration by court action” principle applied	Plaintiff relied on Rosado: subsequent court consideration of matters can be the functional equivalent of granting a motion to restore	Defendant said Rosado is inapposite because filings relied on by plaintiff defended the counterclaim (not prosecutions of the withdrawn complaint) and there was no court action exercising direct authority over the withdrawn complaint	Court held Rosado was distinguishable: here the court did not exercise direct authority over the withdrawn complaint and no substantial activity by the parties implicitly restored the plaintiff’s claim

Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 276 Conn. 168 (2005) (court may implicitly restore a withdrawn case when it exercises direct authority over the withdrawn matter)
Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771 (1997) (withdrawals are analogous to final judgments)
Palumbo v. Barbadimos, 163 Conn. App. 100 (2016) (motion to restore a withdrawn case is seasonable only if filed within four months of withdrawal)
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Twine, 120 Conn. App. 823 (2010) (restoring a case to the docket is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc., 285 Conn. 716 (2008) (distinguishes factual findings from legal conclusions in appellate review of discretionary rulings)
Lusas v. St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church Corp., 123 Conn. 166 (1937) (trial court has jurisdiction to restore voluntarily withdrawn cases)