2009 Ct. Sup. 2085
No. CV04 0487309SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
February 3, 2009
MEMORANDUM
WILLIAM HOLDEN, Judge.
This action was commenced by service of writ, summons and complaint filed March 3, 2004. The defendant brings this motion seeking a dismissal of the plaintiff action for lack of diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 14-3.
The relevant factual and procedural background will be fully delineated in an accompanying memorandum.
DISCUSSION
“Practice Book § 14-3(a) states, in relevant part, that `[i]f a party shall fail to prosecute an action with reasonable diligence, the judicial authority may, after hearing, on motion by any party to the action . . . or on its own motion, render a judgment dismissing the action with costs.’ This rule of practice `reflects the judicial branch’s interest in having counsel prosecute actions with diligence.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gillum v. Yale University, 62 Conn.App. 775, 786, 773 A.2d 986, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 929, 776 A.2d 1146 (2001).
“[T]he ultimate determination regarding [a motion to dismiss for lack of diligence] rests within the sound discretion of the court.” Snow v. Calise, 174 Conn. 567, 574, 392 A.2d 400 (1978). The discretion is properly exercised if “the case has been on the docket for an unduly protracted period or the court is satisfied from the record or otherwise that there is no real intent to prosecute.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lacasse v. Burns, 214 Conn. 464, 474, 572 A.2d 357 (1990). “It is the policy of the law to bring about a trial on the merits of a dispute whenever possible and to secure for the litigant his day in court.” Snow v. Calise, supra, 174 Conn. 574.
After consideration of all the pleadings, arguments of both counsel, and review of applicable law, the court is unable to find that there is no real intent to prosecute this matter and hence, the motion to dismiss CT Page 2086 is denied.
CT Page 2087