Opinion
No. CV03 40 68 28 S
January 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant, Steven G. Cooperman moves this court to dismiss this action against him, for the reason that service of process was insufficient; therefore, the court lacks in personam jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Underwriters at Lloyd, London counters that service was proper in that, to its knowledge, the defendant was incarcerated in California at the time of service. Moreover, the defendant asserts that this motion is untimely.
Upon review of the court file and the plaintiff's affidavit, which was submitted with his motion, the court finds that at the time of service, the plaintiff was a resident of Connecticut. The plaintiff has offered no evidence to contradict this finding. Service was made, however, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 52-59b(c) which provides for service of a non-resident individual. Because the defendant was a resident, service should have been pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 52-57(a) which provides:
While the defendant claims that the plaintiff's sworn statement concerning his residence is insufficient, the defendant provided no documentation from the prison, or any other source, to suggest that he was still an inmate at the time of service.
Except as otherwise provided, process in any civil action shall be served by leaving a true and attested copy of it, including the declaration or complaint, with the defendant, or at his usual place of abode, in this state.
"The crucial time for determining whether [a defendant] was a resident of Connecticut is the time of service." Pitchell v. City of Hartford, 67 Conn.App 799, 806, 700 A.2d 1386 (1997). Because the plaintiff was domiciled in Connecticut at the time of service, but was not served in Connecticut, service was defective. Id.
The plaintiff also argues that this motion was filed after the 30-day limit imposed by Connecticut Practice Book § 10-30. The plaintiff cites to a court summary, on which the defendant's appearance is dated October 16, 2003. Upon review of the file, however, Steven G. Cooperman filed a pro se appearance, which is date stamped by the court on October 23, 2003. No other appearance by this defendant can be located in the court file. Accordingly, the court concludes that the summary was in error. This motion was filed with the court on November 21, 2003, 29 days from the date of the defendant's appearance; therefore, is timely under the rules of practice.
Because service on the defendant, Steven G. Cooperman, was insufficient, the court lacks personal jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss is granted.
WOLVEN, JUDGE.