McGovern Capital v. Papic, No. Cv 02 0190931 S (Dec. 24, 2002)
This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 16641 (McGovern Capital v. Papic, No. Cv 02 0190931 S (Dec. 24, 2002)) 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.
Opinion
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used the plaintiffs' funds improperly and breached the terms of various subscription agreements, converted funds, violated General Statutes §
The prejudgment remedy hearing, initially scheduled for September 23, 2002, was continued to October 21, 2002 and then to November 18, 2002. On October 21, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. At the November 18, 2002 hearing the plaintiffs requested and received permission to file opposing papers and these were filed on November 26, 2002.
The basis of defendants' motion is that the plaintiffs signed agreements containing arbitration clauses and therefore are precluded from litigating their claims in the court, and the court is without jurisdiction to hear or adjudicate the claims. In opposition, the plaintiffs contend that (1) two of the defendants Papic and Carnes are not parties to any arbitration agreement (2) that a prejudgment remedy is available against the two other defendants, Criterion Investment Capital (CIC) and Criterion Investment Fund (CIF) in any event, and (3) CIC and CIF waived their right to demand arbitration. CT Page 16642
The short answer to defendants' contention is that the mere existence of an agreement to arbitrate does not deprive this court of subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute between the parties to the agreement. By means of Chapter 909 of the General Statutes, in fact, the court is specifically given jurisdiction to enforce arbitration agreements and to enforce, modify or vacate arbitration awards. General Statutes §§
Under the General Statutes the defendants may seek to stay this action on the basis that the plaintiffs' claims are subject to arbitration. However, they must be "ready and willing" to proceed with the arbitration. General Statutes §
The authority cited by defendants in support of dismissal, Spicer v.Spicer, judicial district of New London at New London, D.N. 523339 (December 29, 1992, Hendel, J.) aff'd
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is denied.
___________________ ADAMS, J. CT Page 16643
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 16641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgovern-capital-v-papic-no-cv-02-0190931-s-dec-24-2002-connsuperct-2002.