Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 May 2004
• Docket Number: (SC 16808).
• Citation: 848 A.2d 418,269 Conn. 10
• Parties: STEPHEN LOSTRITTO v. COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF NEW HAVEN, INC., ET AL.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

269 Conn. 10

848 A.2d 418

STEPHEN LOSTRITTO v. COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF NEW HAVEN, INC., ET AL.

(SC 16808).

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 28, 2003.

Officially released May 18, 2004.

Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js.

James V. Somers, with whom were Laura Pascale Zaino and, on the brief, Richard C. Tynan and Lisa M. Kowtko, for the appellants (defendants).

Michael P. Del Sole, for the appellees (apportionment defendant Neurosurgical Associates of Connecticut, P.C., et al.).

Michael D. Neubert, with whom was Gretchen L. Grosick, for the appellee (apportionment defendant Murphy and Lieponis, P.C., et al.).

Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 52-102b (a),¹ which requires service of an apportionment complaint within 120 days after the return date of the original complaint, is mandatory or directory in nature. The defendants, Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc. (Community Action), and Elizabeth Barrett, appeal from two judgments of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of both sets of apportionment defendants, Neurosurgical Associates of Connecticut, P.C., and its employee, Harry P. Engel (collectively, Neurosurgical Associates), and Murphy and Lieponis, P.C., and its employee, Jonas Lieponis (collectively, Murphy & Lieponis).² The trial court, Robinson-Thomas, J., dismissed the apportionment complaint as to Neurosurgical Associates, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the defendants' failure to serve Neurosurgical Associates within the 120 day time period mandated by § 52-102b (a).³ Acting on a separate motion, the trial court, Booth, J., dismissed the apportionment complaint as to Murphy & Lieponis, determining that the defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of § 52-102b (a) prevented the court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction.

On appeal, the defendants claim that the 120 day time limitation for bringing an apportionment claim prescribed by § 52-102b (a) is directory, and therefore, the trial court, by interpreting that provision as mandatory, improperly dismissed their apportionment complaint. The defendants also claim that the trial court improperly dismissed the apportionment complaint in light of the trial court's previous grant of an extension of time during which to bring the apportionment claim. We conclude that the 120 day time limitation contained in § 52-102b (a) is mandatory and we further determine that the ninety day extension was ineffective in extending that limitation period. We further conclude that noncompliance with § 52-102b implicates a court's personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court dismissing the apportionment complaint as to all of the apportionment defendants.

The following facts and procedural history guide our resolution of this appeal. In a complaint dated May 21, 2001, with a return date of June 19, 2001, the plaintiff, Stephen Lostritto,⁴ commenced a personal injury action against the defendants, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the defendants' negligence in a motor vehicle accident.⁵ On October 12, 2001, the defendants, who sought to apportion liability to the plaintiff's health care providers, filed a motion requesting a ninety day extension of time within which to serve an apportionment complaint. The defendants claimed that, because the apportionment complaint would allege medical malpractice, additional time beyond the 120 days provided by § 52-102b (a) was needed to conduct a reasonable inquiry, as required by General Statutes § 52-190a (a),⁶ into whether a good faith basis existed for such a claim and to obtain the necessary good faith certificates. No objection to the motion was filed, and the trial court, Silbert, J., granted a ninety day extension on October 15, 2001. Thereafter, on January 14, 2002, the defendants served Neurosurgical Associates with a summons and complaint alleging that the apportionment defendants were liable to the plaintiff for a percentage of the claimed damages due to their alleged medical malpractice. Three days later, on January 17, 2002, the defendants served Murphy & Lieponis with the same complaint.

On February 4, 2002, Neurosurgical Associates filed a motion to dismiss the apportionment complaint as it pertained to it, arguing that "the court lack[ed] jurisdiction over these Apportionment Defendants because the Apportionment Complaint [was] not in compliance with the requirements of . . . § 52-102b (a)." The defendants objected, arguing that the apportionment complaint was timely filed within the ninety day extension period previously granted by the trial court and, therefore, the court had jurisdiction over the action. The trial court, Robinson-Thomas, J., granted Neurosurgical Associates' motion, ruling that, despite the ninety day extension, it did not have jurisdiction over the apportionment action because the apportionment complaint was filed more than 120 days after the return date of the original complaint as mandated by § 52-102b (a). Thereafter, the trial court rendered a partial judgment of dismissal in favor of Neurosurgical Associates.

Murphy & Lieponis, by way of a separate motion filed on February 13, 2002, also sought to dismiss the apportionment complaint as it pertained to it. Murphy & Lieponis, like Neurosurgical Associates, claimed that the 120 day window provided by § 52-102b (a) was mandatory; however, Murphy & Lieponis specifically argued that the court "lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction over the Apportionment Complaint because it was not filed within 120 days of the return date specified in [the] Plaintiff's original complaint, as required by [§] 52-102b (a) . . . ." Again, the defendants objected, claiming that the apportionment complaint was timely filed within the ninety day extension period and, therefore, the court had jurisdiction over the apportionment action. The trial court, Booth, J., granted Murphy & Lieponis' motion to dismiss, ruling that § 52-102b (a) mandates that an apportionment complaint be filed within 120 days of the return date on the original complaint, and, in the present case, the defendants' failure to do so deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Subsequently, the trial court rendered a partial judgment of dismissal in favor of Murphy & Lieponis.

The defendants appealed from the trial court's judgment of dismissal as to Neurosurgical Associates to the Appellate Court.⁷ We then transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. The defendants subsequently amended their appeal to this court to include the trial court's judgment of dismissal in favor of Murphy & Lieponis.

I

The defendants' first claim on appeal is that the 120 day time limitation for bringing an apportionment claim prescribed by § 52-102b (a) is directory and, therefore, the trial courts, which interpreted § 52-102b (a) as mandatory, improperly dismissed their apportionment complaint. The apportionment defendants maintain that compliance with the time limitation contained in § 52-102b (a) is mandatory and, therefore, because the defendants served the apportionment complaint more than 120 days after the return date of the original complaint, the trial courts properly dismissed the apportionment action. We agree with the apportionment defendants. We further conclude that § 52-102b (a) implicates personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction.⁸

Resolution of this issue requires us to construe the relevant statutory provision, namely, § 52-102b (a). Thus, the question of whether the 120 day time limitation contained in § 52-102b (a) is mandatory presents a question of statutory interpretation over which our review is plenary. See Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 546-47, 800 A.2d 1102 (2002).

"The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered." Public Acts 2003, No. 03-154, § 1.⁹ In the present case, Neurological Associates contends that § 52-102b clearly and unambiguously establishes that the 120 day time limitation is mandatory. Although we are persuaded after considering extratextual evidence that the 120 day time limitation is mandatory, we cannot conclude that the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face for two reasons. First, § 52-102b does not state explicitly that the time limitation is mandatory. Second, the inclusion of the phrase "if the apportionment complaint is served within the time period" in § 52-102b (b) could be understood to mean that it is possible that the apportionment complaint could be served outside the 120 day period and nevertheless be viable. We therefore are not limited to the text of the statute in determining its meaning.

"The test to be applied in determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory is whether the prescribed mode of action is the essence of the thing to be accomplished, or in other words, whether it relates to a matter of substance or a matter of convenience.. . . If it is a matter of substance, the statutory provision is mandatory. If, however, the legislative provision is designed to secure order, system and dispatch in the proceedings, it is generally held to be directory, especially where the requirement is stated in affirmative terms unaccompanied by negative words." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 257 Conn. 258, 268, 777 A.2d 645 (2001).

We begin, as we always do, with the language of the relevant statute.¹⁰ General...