Gilmore v. Public Storage, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Gilmore v. Public Storage, Inc.

947 A.2d 441, 108 Conn. App. 143, 2008 Conn. App. LEXIS 268

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 3, 2008

DocketAC 28148

StatusPublished

This text of 947 A.2d 441 (Gilmore v. Public Storage, Inc.) 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

Gilmore v. Public Storage, Inc., 947 A.2d 441, 108 Conn. App. 143, 2008 Conn. App. LEXIS 268 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Bess Gilmore, and her son, Keith Gilmore, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendant, Public Storage, Inc., on a motion for summary judgment. They make several claims on appeal. The plaintiffs’ first claim asserts that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment after a hearing for that motion was scheduled on the short calendar in violation of the rules of practice. Their second and [144]*144third claims assert that the court improperly, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment for additional reasons. Their last two claims pertain to the underlying merits of the case. Because we reverse the judgment on the basis of the plaintiffs’ first claim, we do not need to address the remaining claims.

The following procedural history is relevant to our disposition of the plaintiffs’ appeal. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 17, 2004.¹ The record discloses that on August 25, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 5, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a timely request for an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs argue that their request for an extension of time was granted automatically by the clerk pursuant to Practice Book § 17-45, and, therefore, the motion for summary judgment should not have appeared on the short calendar earlier than thirty days from the filing of the request. The motion for summary judgment, however, was first scheduled on September 11,2006, but was subsequently marked off by the defendant. The motion was then scheduled for September 25, 2006, and heard before the court. While the defendant appeared before the court on September 25, 2006, the plaintiffs did not due to the illness of the plaintiffs’ attorney. As a result, the motion was taken on the papers. On October 5, 2006, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.

Practice Book § 17-45 provides in relevant part: “Any adverse party may, within ten days of the filing of the motion with the court, file a request for extension of [145]*145time to respond to the motion. The clerk shall grant such request and cause the motion to appear on the short calendar not less than thirty days from the filing of the request. . . .’’The plaintiffs’request for an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 5, 2006, which was within the time period specified by the rules of practice.² Because the plaintiffs’ request was filed timely, the clerk automatically granted the request pursuant to Practice Book § 17-45, and the motion for summary judgment should not have appeared on the calendar prior to thirty days after the request had been made. The motion for summary judgment, however, was scheduled on the short calendar for September 25, 2006. September 5 to September 25 is a span of only twenty days, which does not comport with Practice Book § 17-45. The court should have scheduled the motion for summary judgment on the short calendar at least thirty days after the filing of the plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time pursuant to Practice Book § 17-45.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Bess Gilmore, and her son, Keith Gilmore, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendant, Public Storage, Inc., on a motion for summary judgment. They make several claims on appeal. The plaintiffs’ first claim asserts that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment after a hearing for that motion was scheduled on the short calendar in violation of the rules of practice. Their second and [144]*144third claims assert that the court improperly, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment for additional reasons. Their last two claims pertain to the underlying merits of the case. Because we reverse the judgment on the basis of the plaintiffs’ first claim, we do not need to address the remaining claims.

The following procedural history is relevant to our disposition of the plaintiffs’ appeal. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 17, 2004.¹ The record discloses that on August 25, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 5, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a timely request for an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs argue that their request for an extension of time was granted automatically by the clerk pursuant to Practice Book § 17-45, and, therefore, the motion for summary judgment should not have appeared on the short calendar earlier than thirty days from the filing of the request. The motion for summary judgment, however, was first scheduled on September 11,2006, but was subsequently marked off by the defendant. The motion was then scheduled for September 25, 2006, and heard before the court. While the defendant appeared before the court on September 25, 2006, the plaintiffs did not due to the illness of the plaintiffs’ attorney. As a result, the motion was taken on the papers. On October 5, 2006, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.

Practice Book § 17-45 provides in relevant part: “Any adverse party may, within ten days of the filing of the motion with the court, file a request for extension of [145]*145time to respond to the motion. The clerk shall grant such request and cause the motion to appear on the short calendar not less than thirty days from the filing of the request. . . .’’The plaintiffs’request for an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 5, 2006, which was within the time period specified by the rules of practice.² Because the plaintiffs’ request was filed timely, the clerk automatically granted the request pursuant to Practice Book § 17-45, and the motion for summary judgment should not have appeared on the calendar prior to thirty days after the request had been made. The motion for summary judgment, however, was scheduled on the short calendar for September 25, 2006. September 5 to September 25 is a span of only twenty days, which does not comport with Practice Book § 17-45. The court should have scheduled the motion for summary judgment on the short calendar at least thirty days after the filing of the plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time pursuant to Practice Book § 17-45.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

947 A.2d 441, 108 Conn. App. 143, 2008 Conn. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-v-public-storage-inc-connappct-2008.