187 Conn. App. 771
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff John Mosby received a release of jurisdiction from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities on February 18, 2016, triggering a 90‑day deadline to sue under § 46a‑101(e).
- Mosby’s complaint is dated May 9, 2016 and the summons was signed by a clerk the same day, but the record shows the defendant was not served until May 31, 2016.
- Mosby delivered the process for service to Constable Ernie Dumas on May 27, 2016; Dumas served the defendant on May 31, 2016.
- The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to commence the action within 90 days after the release, as required by statute.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on grounds the action was untimely; Mosby appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mosby commenced his action within the 90‑day period under § 46a‑101(e) | Mosby argued the action was timely because the complaint and clerk‑signed summons are dated May 9, 2016 | Defendant argued an action commences upon service on the defendant, which occurred May 31, 2016, after the 90 days | Court held action commenced at service (May 31, 2016) and was untimely (deadline May 18, 2016) |
| Whether the remedial savings statute (§ 52‑593a) saves the action | Mosby asserted § 52‑593a would save the claim if process had been delivered to a constable before the deadline | Defendant argued process was delivered after the deadline (Constable received it May 27), so § 52‑593a does not apply | Court held § 52‑593a inapplicable because the constable received process after the 90‑day period expired |
Key Cases Cited
- Rocco v. Garrison, 268 Conn. 541 (establishes that an action is commenced upon service, not upon return)
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 300 Conn. 1 (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
- Sempey v. Stamford Hospital, 180 Conn. App. 605 (discussion on whether § 46a‑101(e) is jurisdictional)
- Williams v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 257 Conn. 258 (analysis of mandatory time limits and jurisdictional presumption)
- White v. Dept. of Children & Families, 136 Conn. App. 759 (affirming dismissal where 90‑day deadline was not met)