Opinion
No. CV064005245
March 7, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO ADD PARTY
On January 10, 2006, the plaintiff, Lucy Schiavone, filed a foreclosure action against the defendants, Anthony D'Angelo and SAL of New London, LLC. On February 10, 2006, Diana D'Angelo filed a motion to be added as a party in this action, presumably pursuant to Practice Book § 9-18 which provides as follows:
[t]he judicial authority may determine the controversy as between the parties before it, if it can do so without prejudice to the rights of others; but, if a complete determination cannot be had without the presence of other parties, the judicial authority may direct that they be brought in. If a person not a party has an interest or title which the judgment will affect, the judicial authority, on its motion, shall direct that person to be made a party.
On February 14, 2006, the plaintiff filed an objection in which she argues, inter alia, that the motion should be denied because it does not comply with Practice Book § 11-10, which requires a memorandum of law in all cases where a motion for intervention is made.
Practice Book § 11-10 provides that "[a] memorandum of law briefly outlining the claims of law and authority pertinent thereto shall be filed and served by the movant with . . . motions regarding parties filed pursuant to Sections 9-18 through 9-22 . . . (Emphasis added.) See also Gerner v. Applied Industrial Materials Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. X08 CV 02 0192069 (February 26, 2004, Adams, J.) ( 36 Conn. L. Rptr. 576) (denying motion to add a party because it was not accompanied by a memorandum of law). In Executive Rental Leasing, Inc. v. Gershuny Agency, Inc., 36 Conn.Sup. 567, 420 A.2d 1171 (1980), the Appellate Session of the Superior Court addressed the necessity of a memorandum of law being filed with a motion for summary judgment, which is also required by Practice Book § 11-10. The court held that "[t]he use of the word `shall,' rather than `may,' in the phrase `shall be filed and served' indicates that this provision is mandatory, rather than permissive . . . The requirement . . . is not merely directory, but must be followed where a seasonable objection to the failure of the movant to comply with the rule is raised by the opposing party. The trial court cannot waive this requirement over objection of the opposing party because the memorandum of law is directed to the opposing party as well as to the court." Id., 568-69.
In the present case, Diana D'Angelo submits a motion without mention of a statute, Practice Book section or case law. The plaintiff has appropriately raised an objection to this noncompliance with the rules of practice. Because Diana D'Angelo did not submit a memorandum of law as required by Practice Book § 11-10, the motion to add a party is denied without prejudice.