LANDMARK, INC. v. KARLAN, No. TTD CV 07-4008345-S (Jan. 9, 2008)

LANDMARK, INC. ET AL. v. MARY KARLAN ET AL.

2008 Ct. Sup. 68
No. TTD CV 07-4008345-SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
January 9, 2008

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO PROCEED WITH ARBITRATION AND DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
ROBERT F. VACCHELLI, JUDGE.

A dispute between the parties over the construction of a swimming pool is currently pending in the Stamford Judicial District. See Karlan et al. v. Landmark, Inc., No. FST CV 07-5005305 and Karlan et al. v. Landmark, Inc., No. FST CV 07-5003986. Presently pending before the court here in the Tolland Judicial District is Landmark’s Application for Order to Proceed with Arbitration and the Karlans’ Objection thereto and Motion to Dismiss.

The court agrees with the Karlans’ alternative argument that venue is more appropriate in the Stamford Judicial District. Accordingly, and pursuant to General Statutes § 51-347b(a) and Practice Book § 12-1, it is hereby ordered that this case be transferred to the Stamford Judicial District for further review and disposition of Landmark’s Application, and the Kaplans’ Objection and Motion to Dismiss. CT Page 69