Opinion
No. CV05 4005125S
December 29, 2005
CLARIFICATION
The court grants the plaintiff's motion for clarification filed on December 19, 2005, as to the reasons for the denial of the plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings pending arbitration (#106), as entered on December 7, 2005.
The motion was denied as it was presented because it improperly combined two different forms of statutory relief under General Statutes §§ 52-409 and 52-410 in one motion: See Success Centers v. Huntington Learning Centers, 223 Conn. 761, 768, 613 A.2d 1320 (1992). The motion is also procedurally defective because it failed to comply with the statutory requirements of § 52-410. See Levine v. Advest, 244 Conn. 732, 740, 714 A.2d 649 (1998) (§ 52-410 requires party to institute distinct legal action by separate writ of summons and complaint); Success Centers v. Huntington Learning Centers, supra, 223 Conn. 764, n. 5 (request for § 52-410 order was procedurally defective because no application by writ of summons and complaint was made); see also Zarchen v. Union Equipment Co., 20 Conn.Sup. 44, 46-47, 121 A.2d 287 (1956) (requirement of summons and complaint under § 52-410 is mandatory).
The motion was denied without prejudice to permit filing of a proper motion and application.
Additionally, the court notes that there are several additional motions recently filed in this matter, including the plaintiff's renewed motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and the defendant's opposition to the plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. These motions are being assigned for hearing before this court as arguables on January 9, 2006. Counsel are expected to be present at the hearing.