Cameron v. Santiago
Citations
- 223 Conn. App. 836
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for, inter alia, alleged assault arising out of a sexual encounter between the parties. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had not complied with the terms of the plaintiff's consent to the encounter because he did not wear a condom during the entirety of the encounter. The plaintiff brought two prior actions against the defendant, a small claims matter in which the court rendered judgment for the defendant, and an action in the Superior Court alleging breach of contract that resulted in a stipulated judgment for the plaintiff. The trial court in the present case held a pretrial confer- ence, during which it stated that the plaintiff could not continue retrying the case against the defendant. Thereafter, the court issued a written order dismissing the action sua sponte with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiff's claims involved the same parties and factual allegations as her two prior actions. In a subsequent articulation, the court compared the facts of the present case to those of the breach of contract action and explained that its dismissal was based on the prior pending action doctrine. The court also applied this court's holding in Edgewood Village, Inc. v. Housing Authority (54 Conn. App. 164), and concluded that it could not afford meaningful relief to the plaintiff and that the action, therefore, was moot because both of the plaintiff's actions demanded the same relief, which was available to her via the stipulated judgment rendered in the ''prior pending action.'' On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court deprived the plaintiff of procedural due process by sua sponte dismissing her action without giving her notice and affording her an opportunity to be heard with respect to the grounds on which the court based its dismissal: the plaintiff was entitled to adequate notice of the issues that the court intended to address at the pretrial conference, and the court never
Judges: Moll; Clark; Seeley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.