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

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 20, 1997

DocketNo. CV 97 034 50 36

StatusUnpublished

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

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

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendants, James F. Cobb and R.E. Laukhuff, move to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendants, James F. Cobb and R.E. Laukhuff, move to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leach-family-holdings-v-raymark-indus-no-cv-97-034-50-36-nov-20-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack