Leach Family Holdings v. Raymark Indus., No. Cv 97 034 50 36 (Nov. 20, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Leach Family Holdings v. Raymark Indus., No. Cv 97 034 50 36 (Nov. 20, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11905

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided November 20, 1997·No. No. CV 97 034 50 36·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendants, James F. Cobb and R.E. Laukhuff, move to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have waived their right to file a motion to dismiss because they previously filed an answer to the complaint.¹ "Practice Book § 144 provides: `Any claim of lack of jurisdiction over the CT Page 11906 person . . . is waived if not raised by a motion to dismiss filed in the sequence provided in Secs. 112 and 113 and within the time provided by Sec. 142.' Practice Book 112 requires that a defendant file a motion to dismiss on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction prior to filing an answer to the plaintiff's complaint. The defendants, therefore, waived any claim regarding a lack of personal jurisdiction by filing their answer prior to their motion to dismiss." Plasil v. Tableman,223 Conn. 68, 72 n. 6, 612 A.2d 763 (1992). Accordingly the defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

MELVILLE, JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendants, James F. Cobb and R.E. Laukhuff, move to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have waived their right to file a motion to dismiss because they previously filed an answer to the complaint.¹ "Practice Book § 144 provides: `Any claim of lack of jurisdiction over the CT Page 11906 person . . . is waived if not raised by a motion to dismiss filed in the sequence provided in Secs. 112 and 113 and within the time provided by Sec. 142.' Practice Book 112 requires that a defendant file a motion to dismiss on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction prior to filing an answer to the plaintiff's complaint. The defendants, therefore, waived any claim regarding a lack of personal jurisdiction by filing their answer prior to their motion to dismiss." Plasil v. Tableman,223 Conn. 68, 72 n. 6, 612 A.2d 763 (1992). Accordingly the defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

MELVILLE, JUDGE

Leach Family Holdings v. Raymark Indus., No. Cv 97 034 50 36 (Nov. 20, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11905 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11905 (Leach Family Holdings v. Raymark Indus., No. Cv 97 034 50 36 (Nov. 20, 1997)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related