Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Solaire Development, LLC, 156 Conn.App. 17

In 2009 Solaire ordered 2,537 solar panels from Sharp for $1,534,377.60; Stuart Longman signed the purchase orders and executed an unconditional personal guaranty.
Sharp delivered the panels; Solaire paid $200,000 and defaulted on the remaining $1,334,377.60.
Sharp applied for a prejudgment remedy (attachment). At a May 9, 2011 hearing the court stated it would grant a prejudgment remedy per the parties’ stipulation but the body of the signed order lacked the specific remedy and property descriptions; the judge directed an amended order.
After iterations, Judge Maronich signed a final attachment order with detailed property descriptions on November 16, 2011; Sharp served and returned the writ, summons and complaint on December 16, 2011.
At bench trial the court entered judgment for Sharp for $1,334,377.60; defendants appealed arguing (1) prejudgment remedy should have been dismissed under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-278j(a), (2) improper use of an unsealed deposition at trial, and (3) complaint failed to state breach-of-contract claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prejudgment remedy had to be dismissed under §52-278j(a) for failure to serve/return process within 30 days	The entry of the final, effective prejudgment-attachment order occurred on Nov. 16, 2011; Sharp served within 30 days (Dec. 16, 2011)	The May 9, 2011 order that announced the remedy triggered the 30-day rule once the stay expired, so Sharp’s later service was untimely	Court: Remedy was not finally granted until Nov. 16, 2011 when the signed order described property; denial of motions to dismiss was proper
Whether plaintiff’s use of Longman’s unsealed deposition at trial violated Practice Book §13-30(e)	Deposition was used solely to impeach during live testimony and was marked for identification; §13-30(e) does not bar impeachment use nor impose the listed sanction	Use of an unsealed/unfiled deposition was improper and required suppression	Court: Impeachment use of the deposition was permissible; transcript was not admitted as an exhibit and defendants waived sealing/certification defects
Whether complaint sufficiently alleged breach-of-contract claims against Solaire	Complaint alleged sale, delivery, acceptance, partial payment and failure to pay remainder; guaranty alleged for Longman	Complaint lacked specific formation, performance, consideration and specific breached provisions	Court: Pleadings construed broadly; allegations suffice to state breach claims against Solaire and Longman; special defense denied

Feldmann v. Sebastian, 261 Conn. 721 (Conn. 2002) (prejudgment remedies are in derogation of common law and statutes are strictly construed)
State v. Bonner, 290 Conn. 468 (Conn. 2009) (standard of review for factual findings on motions to dismiss)
State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (Conn. 2007) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal questions reviewed plenarily)
New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp., 246 Conn. 594 (Conn. 1998) (distinguishing legal and factual issues on motions to dismiss)
Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC, 298 Conn. 124 (Conn. 2010) (pleading standard: complaint must give defendant notice but be construed broadly)
Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (Conn. 2005) (plenary review of legal sufficiency of pleadings)