Ero v. M & M Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 73561,73561 |
| Citation | 477 A.2d 695,39 Conn.Supp. 294 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Paul E. ERO et al. v. M & M ENTERPRISES, INC. |
Wiggin, Dana & McGuire, New London, for plaintiffs.
Brown, Jacobson, Jewett & Laudone, Norwich, for defendant.
The plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant corporation claiming breach of contract. The defendant filed an appearance signed by its vice president. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a motion for default for failure to appear and a motion to strike appearance on the ground that a corporation may not appear pro se.
In Connecticut, a corporation may not appear pro se. Bar Association v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 20 Conn.Sup. 248, 261, 131 A.2d 646 (1957), modified on other grounds, 145 Conn. 222, 140 A.2d 863 (1958). A corporation may not appear by an officer of the corporation who is not an attorney. American Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Clark & Fray Construction Co., 2 Conn.Cir. 284, 285, 198 A.2d 68 (1963); Bar Association v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., supra, 20 Conn.Sup. 262, 131 A.2d 646, citing Laskowitz v. Shellenberger, 107 F.Supp. 397, 398 (S.D.Cal.1952), quoting 9 Cal.Jur. § 15, p. 448 (Supp.Rev. to 1949).
In the present case, the defendant has attempted to appear by filing an appearance form signed by Corine Jauquet, vice president of the defendant corporation. Since the defendant has not appeared through an attorney, the defendant has failed to appear in this action.
Initially, the plaintiffs filed a motion for default for failure to appear. A party to an action may be defaulted for failure to appear. Culetsu v. Dix, 149 Conn. 456, 457, 181 A.2d 116 (1962); Ruggiero v. Ruggiero, 35 Conn.Sup. 581, 583, 399 A.2d 187 (1978).
The court file, however, contains a photocopy of a memorandum from the office of the clerk notifying the plaintiffs that the motion for default had gone off the calendar and that a motion to strike the appearance should be filed. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike appearance although asserting in their accompanying memorandum of law that a motion to strike appearance does not fall within the scope of Practice Book § 152, which controls the use of the motion to strike.
The motion for default for failure to appear is a proper method to challenge a party's failure to appear, whereas a motion to strike, which mainly attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint, is an improper method. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Triton Associates v. Six New Corp.
...v. Shellenberger, 107 F.Sup. 397, 398 (S.D.Cal.1952), quoting 9 Cal.Jur. § 15, p. 448 (Sup.Rev. to 1949)." Ero v. M & M Enterprises, Inc., 39 Conn.Sup. 294, 295, 477 A.2d 695 (1984). The trial court therefore properly concluded that the defendant, being incapable of filing a pro se appearan......
-
Margaret Maunder Associates, Inc. v. A-Copy, Inc., A-COP
...accorded an opportunity to have its case fully and fairly heard." There is no indication in that case or in Ero v. M & M Enterprises, Inc., 39 Conn.Supp. 294, 477 A.2d 695 (1984), also cited by the defendant, that the officers who appeared for those corporate defendants were sole Section 51......
-
Thorne v. Broccoli
... ... Other cases cited by the plaintiff have different factual patterns from the case at bar. For example, in Weiss v. I. Zapinsky, Inc., 65 N.J.Super. 351, 167 A.2d 802 (1961), the landlord did place a "number of advertisements." In the present case he placed none. The court ... ...
-
Kuiken Brothers Co. v. Coastal Building, LLC, No. CV04 0084114S (Conn. Super. 3/12/2004)
...a motion to strike, which mainly attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint, is an improper method." Ero v. M&M Enterprises, Inc., 39 Conn.Sup. 294, 296, 477 A.2d 695 (1984); see also Triton Associates v. Six New Corp., 14 Conn.App. 172, 175, 540 A.2d 95, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 806, 545 ......