Bloch v. Callaghan

Connecticut Appellate Court

Bloch v. Callaghan

152 A.3d 99, 169 Conn. App. 705, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 453

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedDecember 13, 2016

DocketAC38100

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.3d 99 (Bloch v. Callaghan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bloch v. Callaghan, 152 A.3d 99, 169 Conn. App. 705, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 453 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On October 24, 2014, the plaintiff, Robert M. Bloch, filed this action sounding in tort against Barbara Callaghan and against two attorneys who the plaintiff claimed had represented her, Gregory Bachand and Frank Lieto. On December 1, 2014, Bachand moved that the action be dismissed as to him for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) the plaintiff did not post a recognizance bond, as required by General Statutes § 52-185 and Practice Book § 8-3, and (2) the plaintiff did not serve him in hand or at his place of abode, as required by General Statutes § 52-54.

The trial court held a hearing on Bachand's motion on April 27, 2015. By order dated May 6, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that "there was insufficient service of process upon him." In his brief to this court, the plaintiff fails to challenge the basis upon which the trial court dismissed his claim against Bachand. Instead, the plaintiff argues that his claim against Bachand should not have been dismissed on the basis of his failure to provide a recognizance. Even if the plaintiff is correct in this regard, we can provide him no relief because he has failed to challenge the trial court's stated basis for dismissing his claim, namely, his failure to properly serve Bachand. His claim is therefore moot. See In re Jorden R ., 293 Conn. 539 , 556-57, 979 A.2d 469 (2009).

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

On October 24, 2014, the plaintiff, Robert M. Bloch, filed this action sounding in tort against Barbara Callaghan and against two attorneys who the plaintiff claimed had represented her, Gregory Bachand and Frank Lieto. On December 1, 2014, Bachand moved that the action be dismissed as to him for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) the plaintiff did not post a recognizance bond, as required by General Statutes § 52-185 and Practice Book § 8-3, and (2) the plaintiff did not serve him in hand or at his place of abode, as required by General Statutes § 52-54.

The trial court held a hearing on Bachand's motion on April 27, 2015. By order dated May 6, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that "there was insufficient service of process upon him." In his brief to this court, the plaintiff fails to challenge the basis upon which the trial court dismissed his claim against Bachand. Instead, the plaintiff argues that his claim against Bachand should not have been dismissed on the basis of his failure to provide a recognizance. Even if the plaintiff is correct in this regard, we can provide him no relief because he has failed to challenge the trial court's stated basis for dismissing his claim, namely, his failure to properly serve Bachand. His claim is therefore moot. See In re Jorden R ., 293 Conn. 539 , 556-57, 979 A.2d 469 (2009).

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.3d 99, 169 Conn. App. 705, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloch-v-callaghan-connappct-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack