Opinion
No. HHD CV 09-5026299-S
January 27, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT WARD BLOMQUIST'S MOTION TO DISMISS
This motion is docket entry 116.
The defendant, Ward Blomquist, has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint against him for lack of personal jurisdiction based upon insufficiency of service of process. The return of service reveals that the plaintiff, Joelyn Murphy, did not serve the defendant in person or at his usual place of abode, as specifically required by General Statutes § 52-57. "The clear impact of § 52-57(a) is that one of its two alternatives, personal or abode service, must be followed `[e]xcept as otherwise provided' in the General Statutes." Hibner v. Bruening, 78 Conn.App. 456, 460, 828 A.2d 150 (2003). Moreover, although the plaintiff argues that the defendant is an out-of-state resident, the plaintiff failed to serve the secretary of state. Thus, service of process was not sufficient pursuant to General Statutes § 52-59b, which provides that a court may exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state resident if service is made upon the secretary of state and by sending to the defendant a copy of the process to his last known address. "One who is not served with process does not have the status of a party to the proceeding. A court has no jurisdiction over persons who have not been made parties to the action before it." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 264 Conn. 688, 722, 826 A.2d 107 (2003). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint against him is hereby granted.