328 Conn. 586
Conn.2018Background
- Meadowbrook, a nursing facility, sued Buchman (responsible party) and obtained a trial judgment for the plaintiff; Appellate Court reversed and directed judgment for Buchman.
- Trial court entered judgment for the defendant on April 30, 2014; Buchman filed a bill of costs May 16, 2014 and a motion for attorney's fees on June 4, 2014 (35 days after judgment).
- The trial court denied the untimely motion as not filed within the thirty-day deadline of Practice Book § 11-21 and denied reconsideration.
- Appellate Court held § 11-21's thirty-day rule is directory, not mandatory, and remanded for the trial court to exercise discretion whether to excuse the five-day delay.
- The Supreme Court granted certification to decide whether § 11-21 is mandatory or directory and whether remand was necessary.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court: § 11-21 is directory; remand required for the trial court to exercise discretion under factors akin to "excusable neglect."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Practice Book § 11-21's 30‑day filing deadline is mandatory or directory | § 11-21 uses "shall" and was intended by Superior Court judges to be mandatory; deadline must be enforced strictly | The rule is procedural, lacks a penalty for noncompliance, and was adopted to add structure—so it is directory and trial courts may excuse minor, nonprejudicial delays | Held directory: the rule affords trial courts discretion to entertain untimely motions in appropriate cases |
| Whether the trial court could as a matter of law refuse to consider Buchman's untimely motion (i.e., whether remand is unnecessary) | Courts should apply a strict "excusable neglect" approach and deny relief where counsel misunderstood the rule; denial here proper as a matter of law | Federal/excusable‑neglect factors apply; five‑day delay, no prejudice, some confusion about judgment date make excusing delay reasonable | Held remand required: trial court must apply equitable factors (prejudice, length, reason, good faith) and exercise discretion in the first instance |
| Interaction between Practice Book deadlines and substantive rights (e.g., § 42‑150bb) | Rule should be enforced; it does not impermissibly override statutes and maintains finality | A rigid rule could abrogate substantive statutory rights to fees where statute itself has no time limit; Practice Book must not enlarge/abridge statutory rights | Held Practice Book construed to avoid abridging statutory rights; directory construction prevents unintended deprivation of fee rights |
| Standard to assess whether to permit late filing | Plaintiff urged adoption of strict Second Circuit "excusable neglect" rule to bar the filing | Defendant urged a flexible, equitable inquiry consistent with Connecticut practice and federal factors | Held Connecticut adopts the federal four‑factor excusable‑neglect style analysis (prejudice, delay length, reason, good faith) to guide discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 219 Conn. 473 (Conn. 1991) (rules of practice can be directory; timing rules designed for order and dispatch)
- Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v. Daigle, 282 Conn. 418 (Conn. 2007) (Practice Book § 11-21 provides the postjudgment procedure for statutory attorney's fees)
- Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 314 Conn. 749 (Conn. 2014) (factors for determining whether statutory time provisions are mandatory or directory)
- Oakley v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 237 Conn. 28 (Conn. 1996) (prior Appellate Court decision prompted need for a definitive timing rule for fee motions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Elder, 325 Conn. 378 (Conn. 2017) (contrast: an example where a Practice Book time limit was held mandatory based on rule text and context)
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) ("excusable neglect" is an equitable, multi‑factor inquiry)
- Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2003) (Second Circuit application of excusable‑neglect factors)
- Canfield v. Van Atta Buick/GMC Truck, Inc., 127 F.3d 248 (2d Cir. 1997) (failure to follow a clear court rule generally will not be excusable neglect)