Opinion
No. 347984
April 29, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This decision considers and reconsiders all pending motions and objections pertaining to whether the plaintiff may now claim this matter for a trial to a jury.
This is a civil action returnable to this court on November 11, 1997. On January 27, 1997, the defendant was defaulted for failure to plead. On February 3, 1998, the plaintiff's attorney filed a certificate of closed pleadings and claimed the case for a hearing in damages to the court. On February 4, 1998, the defendant filed an answer without special defenses. As a result, the default was deemed set aside by operation of law. See Practice Book § 17-32(b). On February 13, 1998, the plaintiff's attorney filed another certificate of closed pleadings, again claiming the case for a trial to the court, without a jury. On March 19, 2002, the plaintiff, who now appears pro se, filed a third certificate of closed pleadings in which he also claimed the case for a court trial.
On September 23, 2002, the defendant requested leave to amend its answer to add special defenses. Since the plaintiff did not object, the request was deemed granted. Practice Book § 10-60(a)(3). On March 26, 2003, the pro se plaintiff filed a motion to strike the case from the courtside list and for a trial by jury. The defendant filed an objection and on April 7, 2003, this court denied the plaintiff's motion and sustained the defendant's objection. On March 24, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the case from the courtside trial list and for a jury trial.
General Statutes § 52-215 provides: "When . . . an issue of fact is joined, the case may, within ten days after such issue of fact is joined, be entered in the docket as a jury case upon the request of either party made to the clerk . . ." "It is well settled that a claim for a jury trial must be filed no later than ten days after the pleadings have been closed." Lyons v. Nichols, 63 Conn. App. 761, 770, 778 A.2d 246, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 906, 782 A.2d 1244 (2001).
When amended pleadings raise a new issue of fact, however, a new ten-day period arises in which the parties may claim the matter to the jury. Leahey v. Heasley, 127 Conn. 332, 16 A.2d 609 (1940); Stawicki v. Fraiser, 36 Conn. Sup. 343, 344, 420 A.2d 913 (1980), cited with approval in Hartford National Bank Trust Co. v. DiFazio, 6 Conn. App. 576, 587, 506 A.2d 1069, cert. denied, 200 Conn. 805, 510 A.2d 192 (1986). Here, the defendant, by its special defenses, has raised a multitude of new issues of fact. Moreover, the plaintiff has not yet filed a pleading in response to the new special defenses. Our rules require that the plaintiff reply to special defenses alleged by a defendant. Practice Book §§ 10-56, 10-57. "Where responsive pleading is required . . . the issue is joined when the responsive pleading is filed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Home Oil Co. v. Todd, 195 Conn. 333, 343, 487 A.2d 1095 (1985). Since the plaintiff has not yet replied to the defendant's special defenses, the issues have not been joined, and the time for the plaintiff to claim the case to a trial by jury has not expired.
Prior orders with respect to whether the case may be claimed to a jury are vacated.
The plaintiff is cautioned that a greater degree of formality attends a jury trial than a non-jury trial and "[a]lthough we allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cichocki v. Quesnel, 74 Conn. App. 299, 301, 810 A.2d 319 (2002).
BY THE COURT
Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court