Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)

Citation: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)
Parent Document: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2020-04-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4801014/office-of-chief-disciplinary-co... ↗

Full Text

2,413 chars

Miller]. Upon failing to appear for the commencement
         of jury selection, the court, Bellis, J., entered an order
         dismissing the counterclaim. [Petitioner’s Ex. 3, Obj. to
         Motion to Open, exhibit E]. Despite her claim of illness,
         the respondent filed various pleadings in different cases
         that same day, including a caseflow request, certificate
         of closed pleadings, and an objection to a motion for
         summary judgment. [Petitioner’s Ex. 3, Obj. to Motion
         to Open, exhibit H].
            On January 8, 2015, 119 days after the entry of the
         dismissal, the respondent filed a motion to open judg-
         ment of dismissal. [Petitioner’s Ex. 3]. A hearing on
         the motion was scheduled for February 25, 2015. The
         respondent failed to appear to pursue her motion. As
         a result, the court entered the following order: ‘‘Counsel
         for the counterclaim plaintiff (Attorney Miller) failed
         to appear for the hearing on her motion to open dis-
         missal, despite the fact that written notice was sent
         by the court. Counsel for the counterclaim defendant
         (Attorney Edwards) appeared on time, and the court
         instructed Attorney Edwards to call Attorney Miller.
         Attorney Edwards represented, on the record, that pur-
         suant to the court’s instructions, she did call Attorney
         Miller, who told her that she thought the hearing was
         next week, and that furthermore, her pipes had burst.
         No continuance request was filed by Attorney Miller,
         nor did Attorney Miller contact the court until after she
         was called by Attorney Edwards. The court finds that
         Attorney Miller, who repeatedly fails to appear for
         scheduled court events, waived her right to argument
         on the motion to open, and the court, having reviewed
         all the filings, denies the motion to open on the papers.
         . . . There is simply no good cause to grant Attorney
         Miller’s motion. . . . For these reasons, the motion to
         open is denied. Due to Attorney Miller’s consistent fail-
         ure to appear in court on her various cases, as well as
         her continued insistence on filing last-minute ‘caseflow
Page 50                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                    November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text