Doe v. Bemer
Citations
- 215 Conn. App. 504
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, who were allegedly victims of sexual contact with and exploi- tation by the defendant while they were minors, sought to recover damages from the defendant for, inter alia, assault and battery. Prior to trial, the parties entered into confidential settlement agreements, which included waiver provisions that provided that, in the event of a default by the defendant, the parties consented to the reinstatement of the action to the docket to enforce the agreements and waived any objection to the trial court's continuing jurisdiction beyond four months otherwise proscribed by statute (§ 52-212a). In accordance with the settlement agreements, the plaintiffs withdrew the action in November, 2019. In April, 2020, the defendant failed to make a payment pursuant to the agreements, and the plaintiffs filed a motion to restore the action to the docket. The defendant objected, claiming that his performance was excused due to breaches of the settlement agreements by the plain- tiffs and their counsel. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to restore and, thereafter, denied the plaintiffs' motions for reargument/reconsider- ation, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. The trial court thereafter marked off the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreements, stayed the proceedings, and denied their motion to reconsider, and the plaintiffs filed an amended appeal. Held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to restore the case to the docket: although the basis for the court's ruling was ambiguous, as it was not clear whether the court found that it did not have the power to grant the plaintiffs' untimely motion to restore because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate fraud or whether it exercised its discretion in denying the motion because it determined the matter was not amenable to summary disposition and should be adjudicated in a breach of contract action, the plaintiffs did not seek an articulation of the
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[t]he question of whether a case should be restored to the docket is one of judicial discretion’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moll; Suarez; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Krasko v. KonkosConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-04-09· cited 3×
- Strauss v. StraussConnecticut Appellate Court· 2023-06-27· cited 1×
- Mercedes-Benz Financial v. 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-04-16· cited 1×
- King. v. HubbardConnecticut Appellate Court· 2023-01-10
- Mercedes-Benz Financial v. 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC (Dissent)Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-04-16
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. SpeerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-05-14
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. MaddenConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-12-24
- Speer v. Brown Jacobson P.C.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2025-07-22
- D. A. v. A. C.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2025-09-16
- Alers v. BemerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2026-05-12
- SR Holdings I, LLC v. CannavoConnecticut Appellate Court· 2026-06-09
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-06-15· cited 144×
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-11-15· cited 64×
- Florian v. LengeConnecticut Appellate Court· 2005-09-13· cited 48×
- Bell Food Services, Inc. v. SherbacowSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-02-19· cited 47×
- Washington v. FischerSupreme Court· 2006-02-27· cited 23×
- Gordon v. GordonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2014-02-04· cited 21×
- Gladstone, Schwartz, Baroff & Blum v. HovhannissianConnecticut Appellate Court· 1999-05-04· cited 17×
- Kinity v. US BancorpConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-06-07· cited 13×
- Santoro v. SantoroConnecticut Appellate Court· 1994-03-29· cited 13×
- Daigneault v. Consolidated Controls Corp./Eaton Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2005-06-21· cited 13×
- Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. TwineConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-05-04· cited 12×
- Reiner v. ReinerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-05-28· cited 9×
- Gershon v. BackConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-11-10· cited 8×
- Chartouni v. DejesusConnecticut Appellate Court· 2008-04-15· cited 7×
- Housing Authority of East Hartford v. MoralesConnecticut Appellate Court· 2001-11-27· cited 6×
- DiRienzo Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Salce Contracting Associates, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2010-06-29· cited 6×
- Fitzgerald v. FitzgeraldConnecticut Appellate Court· 2000-12-19· cited 4×
- First Niagara Bank, N.A. v. PounceyConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-05-04· cited 3×
- Davis v. HebertConnecticut Appellate Court· 2008-02-12· cited 2×
- LendingHome Marketplace, LLC v. Traditions Oil Group, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-01-11· cited 2×
Sourced 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.