From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

VOGT v. PURCELL

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
Apr 15, 2004
2004 Ct. Sup. 5682 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

Opinion

No. CV 03 0196844

April 15, 2004


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS


This is an application for a prejudgment remedy by the plaintiff, Raymond Vogt, to attach property belonging to the defendant, Jeffrey Purcell. At the hearing on September 29, 2003, there was discussion among court and counsel concerning the relationship between this suit and the prior action between these same two parties, Purcell v. Vogt, CV99 0175088, a jury case tried in November of 2002. In connection with that case, Judge Adams of this court wrote a memorandum of decision dated April 30, 2003 regarding a motion to set aside the verdict, remittitur, punitive damages and several related matters.

Thereafter, the defendants in this case filed motion #106 to dismiss the application for a prejudgment remedy and the underlying case on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel because of the prior case between the two parties.

A motion to dismiss is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the jurisdiction of the court. Zish v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 195 Conn. 682, 687, 490 A.2d 509 (1985). "A motion to dismiss properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court." State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 203 Conn. 295, 298, 524 A.2d 636 (1987). Whenever a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. Practice Book § 10-33.

However, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel implicate a court's subject matter jurisdiction. Rosenfield v. McCann, 33 Conn. App. 760, 762, 638 A.2d 631 (1994). Res judicata and collateral estoppel must be pleaded as special defenses. Ramsdell v. Union Trust Co., 202 Conn. 57, 65, 519 A.2d 1185 (1987). Accordingly, defendants' claims of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel are not applicable to a motion to dismiss and said motion is therefore denied.

The plaintiff should reclaim the application for a prejudgment attachment to the special proceedings or miscellaneous calendar.

William B. Lewis, Judge (TR)


Summaries of

VOGT v. PURCELL

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
Apr 15, 2004
2004 Ct. Sup. 5682 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)
Case details for

VOGT v. PURCELL

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND VOGT v. JEFFREY PURCELL ET AL

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford

Date published: Apr 15, 2004

Citations

2004 Ct. Sup. 5682 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)