From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tetrault v. CJ Septic Service, LLC

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at New London
Jan 5, 2011
2011 Ct. Sup. 2367 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)

Opinion

No. CV 06 5014080

January 5, 2011


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STAY


A. Background

In the present case, the plaintiff, David A. Tetrault, seeks to enforce a judgment that he obtained against the defendants, Joseph J. Radecki, Jr. and CJ Septic, LLC (CJ Septic). Radecki is an individual and CJ Septic is a single-member LLC that is solely owned by Radecki. Radecki has individually filed a bankruptcy petition in the federal court and judicial notice has been filed. At a hearing in September on the defendant's motion to stay, the parties were ordered to file briefs with respect to the issue of whether all proceedings in this case should be stayed by effect of Radecki's individual bankruptcy petition. On October 15, 2010, the defendants filed a brief in support of staying the proceedings. The plaintiff has filed three requests for extension of time, the first two of which were granted. On December 14, 2010, the court denied the plaintiff's third request for an extension. No subsequent action has been taken by the plaintiff.

B. The Law

Section 362(a) of title 11 of the United States Code provides, in relevant part: "[A] petition filed under Section 301, 302, or 303 of this title . . . operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . . (1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title [and] (2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title . . ." "Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code stays any and all postpetition filing. Any filing constitutes a judicial act directed toward the disposition of the case in violation of the automatic stay . . . The stay of Section 362 is extremely broad in scope and . . . should apply to almost any type of formal or informal action against the debtor or the [debtor's] property." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Krondes v. O'Boy, 69 Conn.App. 802, 808, 796 A.2d 625 (2005).

C. Claims of the Parties

In the present case, the defendants argue that the proceedings should be stayed with respect to both Radecki and CJ Septic because "[t]he limited liability company is solely owned by the filing debtor, Joseph J. Radecki, Jr. As a result, the limited liability company was the property of the debtor, and by virtue of the bankruptcy filing, it is now property of the bankruptcy estate and therefore subject to the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code." Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Stay All Civil Matters, p. 2.

D. Analysis and Conclusion

Our Appellate Court has held that "a nondebtor, seeking to extend the stay beyond the debtor, must move for the extension in the bankruptcy court." Metro Bulletins Corp. v. Soboleski, 30 Conn.App. 493, 497, 620 A.2d 1314, cert. granted on other grounds, 225 Conn. 923, 625 A.2d 823 (1993). Other judges of the Superior Court have applied this holding in similar situations to the present case. See, e.g., Katcher v. 3V Capital Partners, LP, Superior Court, complex litigation docket at Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. X05 CV 08 5008383 (January 17, 2010, Blawie, J.); McMullin v. McMullin, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. CV 321015 (October 22, 1996, Stodolink, J.) ( 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 114).

In the present case, the defendants seek to extend the stay applicable to Radecki to CJ Septic, a limited liability company. "A limited liability company is a distinct legal entity whose existence is separate from its members . . . A limited liability company has the power to sue or be sued in its own name; see General Statutes §§ 34-124(b) and 34-186; or may be a party to an action through a suit brought in its name by a member." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) David Caron Chrysler Motors, LLC v. Goodhall's, Inc., 122 Conn.App. 149, 159, 997 A.2d 647, cert. granted, 298 Conn. 925, 5 A.3d 486 (2010). Based on the fact that a limited liability company is a distinct legal entity, the proper venue in which to seek an extension of the stay is in the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to stay the proceedings with respect to CJ Septic is denied.


Summaries of

Tetrault v. CJ Septic Service, LLC

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at New London
Jan 5, 2011
2011 Ct. Sup. 2367 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)
Case details for

Tetrault v. CJ Septic Service, LLC

Case Details

Full title:DAVID A. TETRAULT v. CJ SEPTIC SERVICE, LLC ET AL

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at New London

Date published: Jan 5, 2011

Citations

2011 Ct. Sup. 2367 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)
51 CLR 314