224 Conn.App. 388
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Patricia A. McDonnell sued Norman A. Roberts II and related entities for legal malpractice and other torts arising from their representation in her marital dissolution case.
- The case was plagued by a series of delays in discovery compliance; multiple motions for nonsuit (default judgment against plaintiff) were filed due to McDonnell's failures to file revised complaints and respond to discovery requests.
- After intermittent compliance and repeated deficiency in discovery responses, the trial court entered a judgment of nonsuit against McDonnell.
- McDonnell moved to open (set aside) the nonsuit, arguing that there was reasonable cause for failing to comply, citing her counsel's medical issues and other personal matters, but provided only general assertions.
- The trial court denied the motion to open, finding inadequate substantiation of a bona fide cause and rejecting the general explanations for noncompliance, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Reason for Noncompliance | Circumstances (counsel's medical/personal issues) constituted reasonable cause for failing to comply with discovery. | Plaintiff provided only general, unsubstantiated reasons; these do not meet the legal standard for reasonable cause. | Plaintiff failed to adequately substantiate reasonable cause for noncompliance with discovery. |
| Practice Book § 17-43 Requirements | Particularized explanation not required for nonsuit for failure to comply with discovery, only for failure to appear. | Court may require detailed explanation for any nonsuit setting aside, regardless of the particular basis for nonsuit. | A particularized, concrete explanation is required; general assertions are insufficient. |
| Existence of Good Cause of Action | Asserted (generically) that viable claims existed at time of nonsuit. | Claims were time-barred under statute of limitations; no viable action existed. | No sufficient showing of a good cause of action at the time of nonsuit. |
| Impact of COVID-19 Executive Orders | Argued Governor Lamont’s Executive Order tolled deadlines, excusing noncompliance. | Even if earlier failures excused, plaintiff still failed to comply after relevant orders expired. | Executive orders did not excuse noncompliance after court’s March 25, 2021, order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. CIT Bank, N.A., 219 Conn. App. 139 (standard for appellate review of denial of motion to open nonsuit judgment)
- Estela v. Bristol Hospital, Inc., 165 Conn. App. 100 (two-prong test for opening a nonsuit: good cause of action and reasonable cause for nonprosecution)
- Farren v. Farren, 162 Conn. App. 51 (court need not credit unsubstantiated, unauthenticated explanations for missed deadlines)
- Searles v. Schulman, 58 Conn. App. 373 (verifying circumstances for failure to appear or comply is required; general statements insufficient)
- Baris v. Southbend, Inc., 68 Conn. App. 546 (plaintiff must present reason for delay in compliance with specificity)