Opinion
HFHCV165001290S
07-12-2016
Legacy Buildings, LLC v. Thomas Logan et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON ISSUES RAISED THROUGH MOTION TO REARGUE
Nicola E. Rubinow, J.
On July 12, 2016, due notice having been provided to all appearing parties to the litigation, the " Defendant's Motion to Reargue the Court Judgment of June 16, 2016 in Favor of the Plaintiff" (Motion to Reargue) was heard by the court. The Motion to Reargue was filed on behalf of and over the signature of: " Marilyn Logan (PRO-SE)." Counsel for the plaintiff and plaintiff's representative attended the hearing as scheduled; as did the defendant Thomas Logan; Marilyn Logan, ostensibly the movant, did not attend.
The hearing was conducted to permit the movant and other appearing litigants to present substantive argument. As contemplated by Practice Book § 11-12(c), the court had considered the motion to reargue in form; had granted the motion to reargue; and had " schedule[d] the matter for hearing on the relief requested."
At the hearing, Thomas Logan adopted the claims that had been raised through the Motion to Reargue. Self-represented, Thomas Logan argued, in essence, that after considering the Motion, the Memorandum of Law and the other documents filed with the Motion to Reargue, the court should grant the relief requested by rendering a judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff, through counsel, urged the court to let stand the judgment rendered in its favor.
After hearing and upon reconsideration of the record in its entirety, the court finds no principle of law which would have a controlling effect but which was overlooked; no misapprehension of facts; no presentation of facts that were newly discovered. See Carriage House I-Enfield Ass'n, Inc. v. Johnston, 160 Conn.App. 226, 236-37, 124 A.3d 952 (2015). The court finds that the issues raised through the Motion to Reargue do not present any pertinent or applicable " legal or factual analysis that it had not considered . . ." in the context of the underlying litigation, or that could have a reasonable impact on the underlying litigation. U.S. Bank, N.A. Trustee v. Morawska, 165 Conn.App. 421, 428, 139 A.3d 747 (2016). See also Carriage House I-Enfield Ass'n, Inc. v. Johnston, supra, 160 Conn.App. 237. At best, the issues raised in the Motion to Reargue constitute " 'an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple . . .' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fortin v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 139 Conn.App. 826, 843, 59 A.3d 247, cert. granted on other grounds, 308 Conn. 905, 61 A.3d 1098 (2013) (appeal withdrawn November 26, 2014), " which opportunity the law eschews. U.S. Bank N.A. Trustee v. Morawska, supra, 165 Conn.App. 428. See also Carriage House I-Enfield Ass'n, Inc. v. Johnston, supra, 160 Conn.App. 237, citing Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692-93, 778 A.2d 981 (2001).
Accordingly, having reconsidered its June 16, 2016 decision as contemplated by Practice Book Sec. 11-12(c), the court concludes that neither Thomas Logan nor any other litigant has met the applicable burden of providing a substantive, meritorious ground for modification of the judgment as originally issued. See U.S. Bank, N.A. Trustee v. Morawska, supra, 165 Conn.App. 428. Any relevant issues raised by the Motion to Reargue and attendant submissions were thoroughly addressed by the parties and considered by the court in relation to the summary process trial and/or the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss that had been filed on behalf of the defendant Marilyn Logan and consolidated with that summary process trial.
Thus, based upon the record originally presented by the parties, the June 16, 2016 memorandum of decision will remain as it was articulated.
SO ORDERED.