VICTOR HARRIS ET AL. v. CHRISTINE NEALE ET AL.
(AC 42301)
Appellate Court of Connecticut
Alvord, Moll and Beach, Js.
Argued January 22—officially released April 28, 2020
***********************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, H, a minor, through his next friend, A, his mother, sought to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the defendants’ negligence. Following certain noncompliance with discovery, the plaintiffs’ attorney sought and was granted a withdrawal from the case. Thereafter, A withdrew her claims. When H did not appear in court on the date trial was set to begin, the trial court rendered a judgment of dismissal. Subsequently, counsel appeared for H and filed a motion to open the judgment, which the trial court denied. H appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to open. Held that the trial court did not properly exercise its discretion in denying H‘s motion to open the judgment, as H satisfied his burden of demonstrating that he was prevented by reasonable cause from prosecuting the action; the trial court‘s finding that H‘s negligence prevented him from prosecuting the action was clearly erroneous, and, to the contrary, the unique challenges H faced in the months leading up to the dismissal of his action, including that he, as a minor, lacked consistent familial support to enable him to prosecute his action and his relationship with A had broken down and was undisputedly plagued by conflict, established reasonable cause that prevented him, a minor allegedly suffering from a major neurocognitive disorder as a result of a traumatic brain injury, from prosecuting his action.
Procedural History
Action to recover damages for, inter alia, the defendants’ alleged negligence, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the court, Bellis, J., granted the motion of the plaintiffs’ attorney for permission to withdraw his appearance; thereafter, the plaintiff Andrea Hill withdrew her claims; subsequently, the court, Bellis, J., rendered a judgment of dismissal; thereafter, the court denied the named plaintiff‘s motion to open the judgment, and the named plaintiff appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed; further proceedings.
John C. Turner, Jr., for the appellant (named plaintiff).
Ashley A. Noel, with whom, on the brief, was Kevin R. Kratzer, for the appellees (defendants).
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff Victor Harris appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of dismissal rendered in favor of the defendants, Christine Neale and Christopher Neale. On appeal, Harris claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to open. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
On April 27, 2017, the plaintiffs sought and received a sixty day extension of time to respond to the defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production dated February 17, 2017. On September 27, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to compel the deposition of Harris, arguing that they twice had been required to mark off Harris’ noticed deposition because they had not received the plaintiffs’ discovery responses. They represented that they had not received any subsequent dates from the plaintiffs to conduct Harris’ deposition, despite having made numerous requests. The defendants represented that they had renoticed the deposition for October 17, 2017, and sought an order from the court compelling Harris to appear on that date or within thirty days of the filing of the motion to compel. On October 10, 2017, the court, Kamp, J., granted the motion and ordered Harris to submit to a deposition on or before October 31, 2017, or be subject to a nonsuit on motion from the defendants.
On November 24, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for order of compliance, in which they alleged that the plaintiffs had failed to produce records critical to the evaluation and defense of the plaintiffs’ claims against them. They requested, inter alia, that the court compel the plaintiffs to comply with the defendants’ standard discovery requests and, in the event that the plaintiffs failed to comply fully on or before December 6, 2017, that the court enter a judgment of nonsuit and/or dismissal. On November 30, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for nonsuit, claiming that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with two court orders, the order requiring Harris to submit to a deposition by October 31, 2017, and the order granting the plaintiffs an extension of time, through May 18, 2017, to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests. With respect to the deposition, the defendants represented that it had been further delayed, first at the plaintiffs’ request
By motion filed on November 20 and amended on December 22, 2017, Cirello sought to withdraw his appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs on the basis that a conflict of interest had arisen with and between the plaintiffs.4 Specifically, Cirello represented that the plaintiffs had “recently been feuding and refuse to speak or be in the same building as one another.” He further stated that Harris had requested that he remove Hill as a plaintiff. He represented that the deteriorating relationship between the plaintiffs had resulted in a lack of communication between the plaintiffs and himself and had materially limited his ability to adequately represent each of their interests. Accordingly, he requested that the court withdraw his appearance on behalf of both plaintiffs and stay the proceedings for three months or other reasonable time to provide the plaintiffs with sufficient time for each to retain independent counsel. The motion was scheduled for a hearing on January 16, 2018, on which date the court granted the motion. Three days later, the defendants filed a motion for default against the plaintiffs for failure to appear, which was not ruled on by the court.
On January 23, 2018, the defendants filed a caseflow request, in which they stated that “[t]he plaintiffs are not represented at this time and a status conference has been scheduled for January 30, 2018, the defendants request that this pretrial be marked off and rescheduled for a date chosen by the court. Please note proper consent has not been given due to the plaintiffs’ nonrepresentation.” The court‘s order on the caseflow request stated: “The status conference will go forward on [January 30, 2018,] as scheduled. The case will be dismissed if the plaintiffs remain nonappearing. The pretrial is cancelled.” The plaintiffs then sought to have the status conference postponed to February 24, 2018. In support of their motion for a continuance, the plaintiffs stated: “Self-represented party kindly requests continuance to allow action to be taken on motion to open judgment regarding motion to withdraw appearance and time to procure counsel.” The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance.
By motion filed January 24 and amended January 25, 2018, the plaintiffs sought to vacate the court‘s order permitting Cirello to withdraw his appearance. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that neither Hill nor Harris had been served with notice of the hearing on the motion to withdraw, that Hill did not appear at the hearing because of a medical emergency, and that Harris was concerned regarding “erroneous proceedings against a minor or person of unsound mind.” Also
On February 13, 2018, Hill filed a caseflow request seeking to have the trial continued. In support of her request, she stated that she needed time to prepare for trial following her counsel‘s withdrawal in January. She also informed the court that a guardianship proceeding had been commenced that day in the Bridgeport Probate Court and represented that such matters are generally resolved in sixty days. On February 20, 2018, the court entered an order with respect to Hill‘s caseflow request: “This will be addressed on [February 27, 2018,] as caseflow does not have the plaintiffs’ telephone numbers to schedule a status conference prior to that.” On February 27, 2018, the trial was continued to May 24, 2018, to afford the plaintiffs additional time to obtain counsel, and a status conference was scheduled for April 3, 2018.5
On April 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to substitute Harris’ stepmother, Mildred Mutape, “as a named party” in place of Hill. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs attached a March 19, 2018 order from the Bridgeport Probate Court, which indicated, inter alia, that Hill had consented to the appointment of a temporary custodian of Harris and that Mutape had been appointed his temporary custodian.
Also on April 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion for nonsuit as to Hill, pursuant to
On May 24, 2018, the date trial was set to begin, Harris did not appear in court. Mutape attended the proceeding, identified herself as “the recently court-appointed guardian for . . . Harris,” and stated that she was seeking to intervene in the case. After the court explained that it would not address Mutape because she was not a party to the case, Mutape responded that
On September 21, 2018, counsel appeared for Harris and filed a motion to open the judgment of dismissal. Harris argued reasonable cause prevented him from prosecuting the action in a timely manner, which he alleged included his serious injuries from the dirt bike accident, his father‘s illness, Hill‘s withdrawal from the case, and Cirello‘s withdrawal from the case. Harris maintained that his case remained viable as to liability and damages and expressed his understanding of the importance of cooperating with discovery requests, should the judgment be opened. He also requested that the court cite in Mutape, whom he stated had been appointed his temporary guardian, as his next friend. On October 4, 2018, the defendants filed an objection to the motion to open, arguing that Harris had failed to show reasonable cause for opening the judgment. On October 9, 2018, the court summarily denied the motion to open the judgment. Harris subsequently filed a motion to reargue pursuant to
On November 27, 2018, Harris filed a motion for articulation. On December 3, 2018, the court filed its articulation, in which it stated that the “motion to open and motion to reargue were denied by the court, given [Harris‘] own negligence, and lack of good cause to open the judgment.” Noting that Harris was represented by counsel from the time of the filing of the action in October, 2016 through January 16, 2018, when counsel withdrew, the court stated that Harris had failed to appear for his scheduled deposition and did not provide full and fair discovery compliance. It further explained that, following the withdrawal of Harris’ counsel, “Harris was unrepresented from January 16, 2018 through September 21, 2018, which was nearly four months after the case was dismissed,” and that such delay prevented the defendants from obtaining the depositions and discovery needed to defend the action. In sum, the court stated that Harris “failed to diligently pursue the case when represented by counsel, failed to comply with standard discovery, ignored court orders, refused to communicate with his attorney, and was nonappearing for his trial dates.”7
“Disciplinary dismissals pursuant to
”
“The court‘s discretion, however, is not unfettered; it is a legal discretion subject to review. . . . [D]iscretion imports something more than leeway in decision-making. . . . It means a legal discretion, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice. . . . In addition, the court‘s discretion should be exercised mindful of the policy preference to bring about a trial on the merits of a dispute whenever possible and to secure for the litigant his day in court.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Multilingual Consultant Associates, LLC v. Ngoh, 163 Conn. App. 725, 735, 137 A.3d 97 (2016).
Harris attached to his motion to open the judgment an October 19, 2017 letter authored by Kathryn A. McVicar, a pediatric neurologist and assistant professor of pediatrics and neurology, stating that Harris “had a traumatic neck and head injury that has caused sequelae.” The letter further stated that Harris had been diagnosed with “[m]ajor neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury, with behavioral disturbance,” “[u]nspecified Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” “[r]efractory migraine with aura,” “[v]ertigo,” “[c]ervical neck pain,” and “[s]leep disturbance.” The letter stated that Harris had “been recommended to receive inpatient services at Gaylord Specialty Healthcare, in addition to contacting the Brain Injury Alliance of Connecticut for additional service support.”
In light of the foregoing, we agree with Harris that his motion to open the judgment made the required showing that a good cause of action existed, and the court understandably did not conclude to the contrary.10 See Bridgeport v. Grace Building, LLC, 181 Conn. App. 280, 299, 186 A.3d 754 (2018). In its articulation, the court stated that it denied the motion to open “given [Harris‘] own negligence, and lack of good cause to open the judgment,” concluding that Harris had failed to satisfy the second prong of
Specifically, the record reflects that Harris, a minor, lacked consistent familial support to enable him to prosecute his action. His father was reportedly critically ill and, for some period of time, comatose,12 and his relationship with Hill, his next friend, was undisputedly plagued by conflict. The discord between Harris and Hill was described in Cirello‘s motion to withdraw, in which he represented that the two were “feuding” and that Harris had requested that he remove Hill as a plaintiff. Despite the breakdown in their relationship, the plaintiffs sought continuances from the court in order to obtain new counsel. Around the same time, Hill advised the court that a guardianship proceeding had been filed with respect to Harris. Mutape was appointed Harris’ temporary custodian in March, 2018, and Hill withdrew from the case in April, 2018. Just before withdrawing from the action, the plaintiffs sought to have Mutape substituted for Hill, representing to the court that the Probate Court had scheduled a hearing for May 18, 2018, regarding the removal of Hill as Harris’ guardian. As of May 24, 2018, when the action was dismissed, Harris, a minor, lacked a next friend and was unrepresented by counsel. The record reveals that it was these circumstances, which were largely beyond the control of Harris, a minor allegedly suffering from a major neurocognitive disorder as a result of a traumatic brain injury, that impeded his ability to diligently pursue the action.13
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to grant Harris’ motion to open the judgment of dismissal and for further proceedings according to law.