Churchill v. Sweeney

Decision Date28 January 2020
Docket NumberLLICV175008526S
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
PartiesBeverly Churchill v. Catherine Sweeney

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Shaban, Dan, J.

ORDER

DAN SHABAN Judge

On April 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed a request for leave to amend its complaint (#124). The defendant has filed an objection (#126). The original complaint was dated March 16 2017. Under our law, pleadings may be amended at any time but the court may restrain the amendment or alteration of pleadings as may be necessary to compel the parties to join issue(s) in a reasonable time for trial. See General Statutes § § 52-128, 52-130; Practice Book § § 10-59 through 10-67. The matter is currently scheduled for trial on October 21 2020.

Whether to grant or deny a request to amend is within the discretion of the trial court and will be considered improper only when such discretion was abused and has caused prejudice or injustice. Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co., 259 Conn 114, 128 (2002). In considering a request, the court should consider the length of the delay; fairness to the opposing parties; and the negligence, if any, of the party offering the amendment. "The essential tests are whether the ruling of the court will work an injustice to either the plaintiff or the defendant and whether the granting of the motion will unduly delay a trial." Summitwood Development, LLC v. Roberts, 130 Conn.App. 792, 800, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 942 (2011). Unless there is some sound reason for denying the motion to amend, a request to do so should be granted. Falby v. Zarembski, 221 Conn. 14, 24 (1992) (court should have allowed the amendment because original complaint had two causes of action in one count); Billy & Leo, LLC v. Michaelidis, 87 Conn.App. 710, 715 (2005) (not an abuse of discretion to deny motion when brought a day prior to start of trial adding a new cause of action related to the same transaction but arising out of a different set of facts).

When an amended complaint raises a new issue of fact, a new ten-day period arises within which to claim the matter to the jury. Flint v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 37 Conn.App. 162, 165-66, aff’d, 238 Conn. 282 (1996). Amendments relate back to the date of the complaint unless they allege a new cause of action. Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 546-57 (1991). An amendment that alleges a new cause of action does not relate back to the date of the original complaint, so for purposes of the statute of limitations, the operative date is the date the amendment was filed. Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Services, Inc., 25 Conn.App. 665, 667, cert. denied, 220 Conn. 922 (1991). An amendment alleges a new cause of action when it presents an entirely new and different factual situation. Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548, 555-64 (2010) (new theories of liability premised on different facts); Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 789, 806-07 (2008) (new factual allegations raised issues not found in original complaint); Barrett v. Danbury Hospital, 232 Conn. 242, 263-64 (1995); but not when it only amplifies, expands or incorporates the allegations of the original complaint. Gurliacci v. Mayer, supra .

"[I]n order to provide fair notice to the opposing party, the proposed new or changed allegation ... must fall within the scope of the original cause of action, which is the transaction or occurrence underpinning the plaintiff’s legal claim against the defendant. Determination of what the original cause of action is requires a case-by-case inquiry by the trial court." (Footnote omitted.) Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C., 325 Conn. 198, 210 (2017). If new allegations state a set of facts that contradict the original cause of action, which is the transaction or occurrence underpinning the plaintiff’s legal claim against the defendant, then it is clear that the new allegations do not fall within the scope of the original cause of action and, therefore, do not relate back to the original pleading. Relevant factors for the court to consider include, but are not limited to, whether the original and new allegations: 1) involve the same actor or actors; 2) allege events that occurred during the same period of time; 3) occurred at the same location; 4) resulted in the same injury; 5) allege...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT