Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)

On July 28, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to
         ‘‘open’’ the withdrawal (motion to open), accompanied
         by a supporting memorandum and exhibits, in which
         he alleged that the plaintiff, its managing agent, and its
         attorneys had perpetrated a ‘‘fraud on the court’’ in the
         defendant’s case and other cases by, inter alia, filing
         perjured affidavits, fraudulent motions, and bad faith
         complaints. The exhibits submitted in support of the
         motion to open included motions and submissions that
         the defendant had not filed with the trial court prior
         to the plaintiff’s withdrawal, including the defendant’s
         reply to the plaintiff’s opposition to his motion to dis-
         miss; a motion ‘‘to change the order of the trial, for a
         stay of plaintiff’s affirmative case, and separate trials’’;
         and a motion to ‘‘dismiss, for summary judgment, con-
         tempt and sanctions’’ that sought various sanctions
         against the plaintiff. In his motion to open, the defen-
         dant averred that he had intended to serve and file these
         various papers on the trial date of the summary process
         action, but that he had been ‘‘preempted by the plain-
         tiff’s withdrawal.’’
            The court denied the defendant’s motion to open on
         August 15, 2023, on the ground that a motion to open
         was not the proper procedural vehicle to restore a case
         to the docket. Thereafter, on September 11, 2023, the
         defendant filed the motion to restore, which incorpo-
         rated by reference the motion to open and its supporting
         exhibits. The court denied this motion on September
         14, 2023, stating in relevant part: ‘‘At no time [prior
         to trial] did the defendant file any pleadings seeking
         affirmative relief. He now seeks to have this case
         restored to the docket to seek orders and relief that
         were never sought while the case was pending. The
         motion to restore is denied.’’ This appeal followed.2
           2
             While this appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a new summary process
         action against the defendant for nonpayment of rent. See Colchester Estate
         Ventures, LLC v. Madden, Superior Court, judicial district of New London
         at Norwich, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S. In connection with the present
         appeal, the defendant filed a motion requesting that we take judicial notice
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 3