Opinion
No. HHD CV-08-5029882S
November 30, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff in the above entitled action has filed ten offers of judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 52-192a in which she agrees to settle her case in exchange for the payment of money by the defendants. The various offers of judgment are directed to the individual defendants as well as overlapping groups of defendants so that different defendants are linked together within the various offers. The defendants have objected to the plaintiff's offers, arguing that in Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., 239 Conn. 708, 687 A.2d 506 (1997), our Supreme Court held that plaintiffs may file either individual offers of judgment directed to each defendant or a unified offer of judgment directed to all defendants, but not both. The court agrees with the defendants' argument that the offer of judgment mechanism chosen by the plaintiff is improper.
General Statutes § 52-192a(a) states: "After commencement of any civil action based upon contract or seeking the recovery of money damages, whether or not other relief is sought, the plaintiff may, not earlier than one hundred eighty days after service of process is made upon the defendant in such action but not later than thirty days before trial, file with the clerk of the court a written offer of compromise signed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney, directed to the defendant or the defendant's attorney, offering to settle the claim underlying the action for a sum certain. For the purposes of this section, such plaintiff includes a counterclaim plaintiff under section 8-132. The plaintiff shall give notice of the offer of compromise to the defendant's attorney or, if the defendant is not represented by an attorney, to the defendant himself or herself. Within thirty days after being notified of the filing of the offer of compromise and prior to the rendering of a verdict by the jury or an award by the court, the defendant or the defendant's attorney may file with the clerk of the court a written acceptance of the offer of compromise agreeing to settle the claim underlying the action for the sum certain specified in the plaintiff's offer of compromise. Upon such filing and the receipt by the plaintiff of such sum certain, the plaintiff shall file a withdrawal of the action with the clerk and the clerk shall record the withdrawal of the action against the defendant accordingly. If the offer of compromise is not accepted within thirty days and prior to the rendering of a verdict by the jury or an award by the court, the offer of compromise shall be considered rejected and not subject to acceptance unless refiled. Any such offer of compromise and any acceptance of the offer of compromise shall be included by the clerk in the record of the case."
General Statutes § 52-192b states: "Sections 52-192a to 52-195, inclusive, of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2005, shall be applicable to any cause of action accruing prior to October 1, 2005." This statute applies to the present case inasmuch as the plaintiff's causes of action are alleged to have accrued before October 1, 2005; hence, the phrase "offer of judgment" is appropriate.
In Blakeslee, the court stated that the purpose of allowing offers of judgment to be filed under § 52-192a is to encourage pretrial settlements and consequently, to conserve judicial resources. Additionally, it noted that "the partial settlement of a case does little for the conservation of our limited judicial resources. Accordingly, the ultimate goal in a multi-party lawsuit is the fair and reasonable settlement of the case on a global basis." Id., 742-43. Since the purpose of filing offers of judgment is the resolution of cases on a global basis, it is clear that offers filed by a plaintiff should be aimed at achieving this result. In the case at hand, it is difficult for this court to see how the numerous offers of judgment directed at various permutations of defendants helps to effectuate a global resolution of the entire case. Rather than "providing the defendants with myriad options regarding how they might choose to assess their exposure"; (Pl's Reply Br. at 6); the numerous, overlapping offers filed by the plaintiff seem only to sow confusion and make global resolution of the case more difficult. For instance, as some of the offers apply only to certain sets of defendants, it could easily be asked, if accepted, what the status of the case would be for the remaining defendants since the offer presumably applied only to a certain set. Yet, on the other hand, the plaintiff also extended the offer for the same amount of money to all of the defendants collectively.
The Blakeslee court stated that, "when making an offer of judgment under § 52-192a, it is within the plaintiff's discretion whether to file a unified offer of judgment for multiple defendants or separate offers of judgment for each defendant." (Emphasis added.) Id., 749. The court did not include the plaintiff's method of filing combined offers of judgment directed to various groups of defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to comply with § 52-192a, and therefore, the offers of judgment not in compliance with the statute are stricken.