Opinion
No. 3:17-cv-1223 (SRU)
12-22-2017
JOSE ANTHONY TORREZ, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Defendants.
RULING ON MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT REMEDY
Plaintiff, Jose Anthony Torrez ("Torrez"), filed a complaint asserting a claim for deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs. Torrez has filed a motion seeking a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $100,000. To secure this sum, Torrez seeks attachment of the defendants' real and personal property and an order of garnishment. Torrez states in conclusory fashion that "there is probable cause that a judgment will be rendered in this matter in favor of the applicant," ECF No. 27 at 1, and "there is probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought or in an amount greater that the prejudgment remedy sought, ... will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff...." Id. at 20.
Prejudgment remedies are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64. That rule permits a plaintiff to utilize state prejudgment remedies to secure a judgment that might ultimately be rendered in a federal action. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 436 (1974). The procedure for obtaining prejudgment liens is governed by state law. See Bahrain Telecommunications Co. v. Discoverytel, Inc., 476 F. Supp. 2d 176, 183 (D. Conn. 2007).
Connecticut General Statutes § 52-278a, et seq., govern prejudgment remedies. Section 52-278c sets forth the required documents to be filed with the court and the requirements of service on the defendants of notice and intent to secure a prejudgment remedy. Section 52-278b emphasized that a party cannot obtain a prejudgment remedy unless he complies with the statutory requirements. See Porter v. Yale University Police Dep't, 2011 WL 3290212, at *3-4 (D. Conn. Aug. 1, 2011).
Torrez' motion does not comply with the statutory requirements. He fails to submit a sworn affidavit setting forth facts sufficient to establish that there is probable cause that a judgment will be rendered in his favor in the amount sought as required by Connecticut General Statutes § 52-578c(a)(2). He also fails to attach the notice and claim form required by section 52-278c(e), (f) and (g). Thus, his motion must be denied. See Green v. Shaw, 2017 WL 4681949, at *2 (D. Conn. Oct. 18, 2017) (denying motion for prejudgment remedy for failure to comply with statutory requirements).
Torrez' motion for prejudgment remedy [ECF No. 27] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 22nd day of December 2017.
/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge