Ladizki v. Wisnioski, No. Cv 99-0593531s (Oct. 3, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Ladizki v. Wisnioski, No. Cv 99-0593531s (Oct. 3, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13911

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 3, 2001

DocketNo. CV 99-0593531S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13911 (Ladizki v. Wisnioski, No. Cv 99-0593531s (Oct. 3, 2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ladizki v. Wisnioski, No. Cv 99-0593531s (Oct. 3, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13911 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER MOTION TO DISMISS (#110) The PJR application is deemed withdrawn as of February 20, 2000, thirty CT Page 13912 days after the denial of the PJR by Judge O'Neill. Therefore, motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint in this matter was served in violation of General Statutes § 52-278j(b) is denied.

The two count complaint in this action (defamation, count one, and tortious interference, count two), was filed on March 7, 2001. At the time it was filed, the plaintiffs had a prior two-count lawsuit pending, filed on July 5, 2000 (CV 00 0800015), against the same defendant which also alleged defamation and tortious interference with contract based on the same underlying facts. The court has examined the pleadings and finds that the two lawsuits are virtually the same. Sandvig v. A. Debreuil Sons, Inc., 53 Conn. App. 466, 469, 730 A.2d 646, cert. denied,250 Conn. 920, 738 A.2d 659 (1999). Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the prior pending action doctrine is granted.

Peck, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER MOTION TO DISMISS (#110) The PJR application is deemed withdrawn as of February 20, 2000, thirty CT Page 13912 days after the denial of the PJR by Judge O'Neill. Therefore, motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint in this matter was served in violation of General Statutes § 52-278j(b) is denied.

The two count complaint in this action (defamation, count one, and tortious interference, count two), was filed on March 7, 2001. At the time it was filed, the plaintiffs had a prior two-count lawsuit pending, filed on July 5, 2000 (CV 00 0800015), against the same defendant which also alleged defamation and tortious interference with contract based on the same underlying facts. The court has examined the pleadings and finds that the two lawsuits are virtually the same. Sandvig v. A. Debreuil Sons, Inc., 53 Conn. App. 466, 469, 730 A.2d 646, cert. denied,250 Conn. 920, 738 A.2d 659 (1999). Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the prior pending action doctrine is granted.

Peck, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ladizki-v-wisnioski-no-cv-99-0593531s-oct-3-2001-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack