Opinion
FSTFA054029367S
06-29-2018
Maria SEE v. Samuel MAGLIARI
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
HELLER, J.
This matter began as a custody proceeding in 2005. The plaintiff Maria See and the defendant Samuel Magliari are the parents of Kimberly Magliari, born on February 28, 2001. The final custody judgment (Abery-Wetstone, J.) (# 125.50; # 126.00) incorporated by reference the parties’ agreement, dated November 16, 2006 (the November 2006 agreement) (# 125.00).
The case was transferred to this judicial district from the District of Fairfield on October 28, 2015 (Sommer, J.) (# 128.33; # 129.33). On April 22, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation (the April 2016 stipulation) regarding custody, parenting, child support, and sharing the cost of Kimberly’s cell phone, unreimbursed medical expenses, athletic activities, camps, and travel. The plaintiff also agreed to notify the defendant of her employment within seventy-two hours. The April 2016 stipulation was approved and so ordered by the court (Colin, J.) on April 25, 2016.
Between the April 2016 stipulation and the date of this memorandum of decision, the defendant has filed thirty-seven motions. The plaintiff has filed three, all of which are motions for sanctions, postjudgment.
The first of the plaintiff’s three motions for sanctions, postjudgment, is before the court. The two later motions were filed on March 6, 2018 (# 206.00; # 207.00). Motion # 207.00 appears to be a duplicate of motion # 206.00.
On March 27, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, postjudgment (# 173.00). The plaintiff seeks sanctions for the defendant’s wilful and repeated failure and refusal to comply with the Rules of Practice and his continual filing of frivolous pleadings and motions that have no basis in law. This motion is presently before the court. The defendant has filed twenty-four motions since the plaintiff filed the postjudgment motion for sanctions.
The parties were before the court on the January 2, 2018 short calendar. The court advised them at that time that the court, on its own motion, was scheduling a hearing to consider whether the court should impose sanctions pursuant to Practice Book § 1-25 to restrict the filing of pleadings in this case (see # 201.00). The court also opened the record to take additional evidence on the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, postjudgment. The defendant has filed twelve motions since the January 2, 2018 short calendar.
On February 2, 2018, the parties were before the court for a hearing on, inter alia, the court’s motion pursuant to Practice Book § 1-25 and the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, postjudgment. Both parties testified. The plaintiff was represented by counsel, and the defendant represented himself. The hearing concluded with closing arguments on March 5, 2018. The court reserved decision at that time. The defendant has filed seven motions since the March 5, 2018 hearing.
Practice Book § 1-25 provides as follows: "(a) No party or attorney shall bring or defend an action, or assert or oppose a claim or contention, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous. Good faith arguments for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law shall not be deemed frivolous. (b) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the judicial authority, solely on its own motion and after a hearing, may impose sanctions for actions that include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Filing of pleadings, motions, objections, requests or other documents that violate subsection (a) above; (2) Wilful or repeated failure to comply with rules or orders of the court, including Section 4-7 on personal identifying information; (3) After prior direction from the court, the filing of any materials or documents that: (A) are not relevant and material to the matter before the court or (B) contain personal, medical or financial information that is not relevant or material to the matter before the court. (c) The judicial authority may impose sanctions including, but not limited to, fines pursuant to General Statutes § 51-84; orders requiring the offending party to pay costs and expenses, including attorneys fees; and orders restricting the filing of papers with the court. (d) Offenders subject to such sanctions may include counsel, self-represented parties, and parties represented by counsel."
The court read the provisions of Practice Book § 1-25 into the record during the short calendar proceedings on January 2, 2018 (# 201.00).
The defendant’s status as a self-represented litigant has no bearing on the court’s analysis. "[I]t is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of pro se litigants and when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the pro se party ... Although 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.) Murphy v. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Stamford, 86 Conn.App. 147, 157 n.7, 860 A.2d 764 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 910, 870 A.2d 1080 (2005). Like any other litigant, the defendant is required to comply with the Practice Book.
The court has carefully reviewed the thirty-seven motions filed by the defendant since the April 2016 stipulation. With some exceptions, the motions repeat the same claims, many of which have already been adjudicated by the court. The court finds that the defendant has repeatedly violated Practice Book § 1-25(a) in the pleadings, motions, objections, requests, and other documents that he has filed in this action. The defendant has also failed to comply with the requirements of Practice Book § 13-10. The court finds that sanctions are warranted pursuant to Practice Book § 1-25(b) and the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, postjudgment.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, postjudgment, is hereby granted. It is further ordered as follows:
1. The defendant shall not file a motion for contempt, sanctions, modification or any other relief in which the claim underlying the request for relief is: (a) that the plaintiff failed to take a parenting education program in 2005; (b) that the plaintiff filed false claims of domestic violence against the defendant; (c) that the plaintiff filed a false financial affidavit in 2015, 2016 and/or 2017; (d) that the plaintiff did not notify the defendant within seventy-two hours of her obtaining new employment in 2016; (e) that the plaintiff did not arrange for a Family Services intake as ordered by the court (Tindill, J.) on August 7, 2016; (f) that the plaintiff failed to pay child support and/or her share of the cost of Kimberly’s extracurricular activities and unreimbursed medical expenses in 2016 and/or 2017; (g) that the plaintiff failed to exercise her parenting time with Kimberly and make arrangements for visitation in 2016 and/or in 2017; (h) that the plaintiff has committed tax evasion; (i) that the plaintiff married her current husband while still married to someone else; (j) that the plaintiff lied about using birth control in order to become pregnant and force the defendant to marry her so that she could obtain a green card; (k) that the parties enrolled Kimberly in St. Luke’s School and shared the cost of her education before the plaintiff relocated to Florida; (l) that the plaintiff neglected Kimberly, fed her improperly, and permitted her to become dehydrated and/or constipated in 2004 and 2005; (m) that the plaintiff provided an unsafe living environment for Kimberly, including placing her toy car under dangerous power lines, when she lived in Connecticut; (n) that the plaintiff concealed stocks and assets in 2004 and 2005; (o) that the plaintiff moved to Florida with Kimberly in violation of a court order; and (p) that the plaintiff filed false claims against the defendant in Florida in 2015.
2. The defendant shall not make repetitive filings of the same pleading or file multiple pleadings that assert the same claims.
3. Any future motion for contempt, sanctions, modification or other relief filed by the defendant shall (a) be appended with a request for leave to file such motion, (b) state the specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief, and (c) identify the court order alleged to be violated or sought to be modified. The specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief shall be sworn to by the defendant.
4. Any future motion for attorneys fees filed by the defendant shall (a) be appended with a request for leave to file such motion, and (b) state the specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief. The specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief shall be sworn to by the defendant.
5. Any future motion to appoint an attorney for Kimberly filed by the defendant shall (a) be appended with a request for leave to file such motion, and (b) state the specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief. The specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief shall be sworn to by the defendant.
6. Any future motion to compel the production of documents filed by the defendant shall (a) be appended with a request for leave to file such motion; (b) state the specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief; and (c) set forth the date, time, place, and substance of the good faith discussions between the defendant and counsel for the plaintiff regarding the discovery at issue. The specific factual and legal basis for the claimed relief and the information concerning the good faith discussions shall be sworn to by the defendant.
7. With respect to any motion filed with a request for leave to file as set forth in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above, if no objection to the request is filed by the plaintiff within ten days of the date of service of such request on the plaintiff, the request for leave may be determined by the court with or without hearing. If an objection is filed, the request shall be placed on the short calendar for a hearing, unless the court otherwise directs. At such hearing, the defendant must demonstrate probable cause that grounds exist for the motion to be granted.
8. The defendant shall not seek any relief in this action with respect to a claim that has already been decided by the court unless (a) the defendant is seeking to enforce a court order, or (b) the claim was denied without prejudice (such as, for example, the motions of the defendant for establishment of an educational support order, postjudgment (# 190.00; # 191.00) ).
9. The defendant shall not seek an order compelling the production of documents where (a) the documents have previously been provided by the plaintiff to the defendant, or (b) a motion to compel the production of such documents has already been denied by the court.
10. The defendant shall refrain from ad hominem attacks and accusations of fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, and dishonesty against the plaintiff and her attorney in any pleading, motion, or other document filed in this action. In denying the defendant’s motion for order, postjudgment (# 181.00), this court found "no evidence to support the defendant’s claims that the plaintiff has committed perjury and perpetrated a fraud upon the court. The plaintiff and her counsel have not obstructed justice, defrauded the court, or delayed these proceedings. If a party has attempted to use the court system as a weapon against the other party, the party doing so is the defendant, not the plaintiff." (# 181.01). These findings are incorporated in these orders.