Preview
DOCKET NO. NNH-CV23-6138388-S : SUPERIOR COURT
NATINA PAGAN : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
V. : AT NEW HAVEN
CLARENCE WILLIAMSON, ET AL. : JANUARY 22, 2024
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Practice Book §17-44, the Defendant respectfully moves for
summary judgment as to all claims against him made by the Plaintiff. This case is not
yet scheduled for trial.
The Defendant asserts that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the
Plaintiff’s failure to commence this action within the time provided in the applicable
statute of limitations.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the
Defendant respectfully moves for summary judgment in his favor on all claims against
him.
THE DEFENDANT,
Clarence Williamson
By____/s/ 432890_____________________
Adam D. LaRue
Mazza and Welch
99 Hawley Lane, Suite 1103
Stratford, CT 06614
Tel: 203-331-1505
Juris No: 408555
Page 1 of 6
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or
delivered electronically or non-electronically to all attorneys and self-represented parties
of record and that all written consent for electronic delivery was received from all
attorneys and self-represented parties of record who received or will immediately be
receiving electronic delivery.
Weber & Rubano LLC sent via email rjweber@rjwlawyer.com
401 Center Street
Wallingford, CT 06492
Penino & Moynihan, LLP cbutterly@peninomoynihanlaw.com
5 Steep Hill Road
Weston, CT 06883
____/s/ 432890_______________________
Adam D. LaRue
Page 2 of 6
DOCKET NO. NNH-CV23-6138388-S : SUPERIOR COURT
NATINA PAGAN : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
V. : AT NEW HAVEN
CLARENCE WILLIAMSON, ET AL. : JANUARY 22, 2024
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Defendant, Clarence Williamson, respectfully submits this Memorandum of
Law in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims against him by the
Plaintiff, Natina Pagan.
I. BACKGROUND
The present action was initiated by the Plaintiff by writ, summons, and complaint
dated October 25, 2023, filed December 4, 2023, with a return date of December 12,
2023.
The Plaintiff alleges personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle collision that
occurred on or about October 31, 2021. This action was served on November 7, 2023,
per the return of service filed by the Plaintiffs on December 4, 2023 (Entry No. 100.30).
The Plaintiff has not filed any affidavit from a marshal endorsing that said marshal
received process prior to the statute running.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Practice Book §17-49 states that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith
if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
Page 3 of 6
matter of law.” “The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary
judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the
material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a
judgment as a matter of law.” Ramirez v. Health Net of Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 11
(2007). “To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear
what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine
issue of material fact . . .” Id. Since, “the burden of proof is on the movant, the evidence
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent . . .” Id. Once the movant
has met its burden, the opposing party must present evidence that shows the existence
of a disputed material fact issue. Martel v. Metropolitan District Commission, 275 Conn.
38, 46-47 (2005). Mere assertions of material disputed facts are insufficient to establish
the existence of a material fact. Boone v. William W. Backus Hospital, 272 Conn. 551,
559-59 (2005).
III. ARGUMENT
There is no question that the present action was not commenced within the time
period provided by law. The applicable statute of limitations in the present matter is
mandated by C.G.S. § 52-584, which reads in pertinent part as follows: “no action to
recover damages for injury to person . . . caused by negligence or by reckless or
wanton misconduct . . . shall be brought but within two years from the date when the
injury is first sustained or discovered . . .”
The subject motor vehicle collision took place on October 31, 2021, pursuant to
the Plaintiff’s complaint. Service was made on November 7, 2023, pursuant to the
Page 4 of 6
Plaintiff’s return of service. The dates are not in dispute; the service was made outside
of the two-year statute of limitations of October 31, 2023. The Plaintiff has not filed any
affidavit or supporting documentation from a marshal to save this case under C.G.S. §
52-593a.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Defendant respectfully requests the Court grant this Motion for Summary
Judgment as to all claims against him by the Plaintiff, Natina Pagan, as the Plaintiff has
brought this action outside of the applicable statute of limitations.
THE DEFENDANT,
Clarence Williamson
By____/s/ 432890_____________________
Adam D. LaRue
Mazza and Welch
99 Hawley Lane, Suite 1103
Stratford, CT 06614
Tel: 203-331-1505
Juris No: 408555
Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or
delivered electronically or non-electronically to all attorneys and self-represented parties
of record and that all written consent for electronic delivery was received from all
attorneys and self-represented parties of record who received or will immediately be
receiving electronic delivery.
Weber & Rubano LLC sent via email rjweber@rjwlawyer.com
401 Center Street
Wallingford, CT 06492
Penino & Moynihan, LLP cbutterly@peninomoynihanlaw.com
5 Steep Hill Road
Weston, CT 06883
____/s/ 432890_______________________
Adam D. LaRue
Page 6 of 6
Preview
DOCKET NO. NNH-CV23-6138388-S : SUPERIOR COURT NATINA PAGAN : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN V. : AT NEW HAVEN CLARENCE WILLIAMSON, ET AL. : JANUARY 22, 2024 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Practice Book §17-44, the Defendant respectfully moves for summary judgment as to all claims against him made by the Plaintiff. This case is not yet scheduled for trial. The Defendant asserts that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the Plaintiff’s failure to commence this action within the time provided in the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the Defendant respectfully moves for summary judgment in his favor on all claims against him. THE DEFENDANT, Clarence Williamson By____/s/ 432890_____________________ Adam D. LaRue Mazza and Welch 99 Hawley Lane, Suite 1103 Stratford, CT 06614 Tel: 203-331-1505 Juris No: 408555 Page 1 of 6 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically to all attorneys and self-represented parties of record and that all written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self-represented parties of record who received or will immediately be receiving electronic delivery. Weber & Rubano LLC sent via email rjweber@rjwlawyer.com 401 Center Street Wallingford, CT 06492 Penino & Moynihan, LLP cbutterly@peninomoynihanlaw.com 5 Steep Hill Road Weston, CT 06883 ____/s/ 432890_______________________ Adam D. LaRue Page 2 of 6 DOCKET NO. NNH-CV23-6138388-S : SUPERIOR COURT NATINA PAGAN : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN V. : AT NEW HAVEN CLARENCE WILLIAMSON, ET AL. : JANUARY 22, 2024 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Defendant, Clarence Williamson, respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims against him by the Plaintiff, Natina Pagan. I. BACKGROUND The present action was initiated by the Plaintiff by writ, summons, and complaint dated October 25, 2023, filed December 4, 2023, with a return date of December 12, 2023. The Plaintiff alleges personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about October 31, 2021. This action was served on November 7, 2023, per the return of service filed by the Plaintiffs on December 4, 2023 (Entry No. 100.30). The Plaintiff has not filed any affidavit from a marshal endorsing that said marshal received process prior to the statute running. II. LEGAL STANDARD Practice Book §17-49 states that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a Page 3 of 6 matter of law.” “The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law.” Ramirez v. Health Net of Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 11 (2007). “To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact . . .” Id. Since, “the burden of proof is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent . . .” Id. Once the movant has met its burden, the opposing party must present evidence that shows the existence of a disputed material fact issue. Martel v. Metropolitan District Commission, 275 Conn. 38, 46-47 (2005). Mere assertions of material disputed facts are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact. Boone v. William W. Backus Hospital, 272 Conn. 551, 559-59 (2005). III. ARGUMENT There is no question that the present action was not commenced within the time period provided by law. The applicable statute of limitations in the present matter is mandated by C.G.S. § 52-584, which reads in pertinent part as follows: “no action to recover damages for injury to person . . . caused by negligence or by reckless or wanton misconduct . . . shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered . . .” The subject motor vehicle collision took place on October 31, 2021, pursuant to the Plaintiff’s complaint. Service was made on November 7, 2023, pursuant to the Page 4 of 6 Plaintiff’s return of service. The dates are not in dispute; the service was made outside of the two-year statute of limitations of October 31, 2023. The Plaintiff has not filed any affidavit or supporting documentation from a marshal to save this case under C.G.S. § 52-593a. IV. CONCLUSION The Defendant respectfully requests the Court grant this Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims against him by the Plaintiff, Natina Pagan, as the Plaintiff has brought this action outside of the applicable statute of limitations. THE DEFENDANT, Clarence Williamson By____/s/ 432890_____________________ Adam D. LaRue Mazza and Welch 99 Hawley Lane, Suite 1103 Stratford, CT 06614 Tel: 203-331-1505 Juris No: 408555 Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of this document was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically to all attorneys and self-represented parties of record and that all written consent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self-represented parties of record who received or will immediately be receiving electronic delivery. Weber & Rubano LLC sent via email rjweber@rjwlawyer.com 401 Center Street Wallingford, CT 06492 Penino & Moynihan, LLP cbutterly@peninomoynihanlaw.com 5 Steep Hill Road Weston, CT 06883 ____/s/ 432890_______________________ Adam D. LaRue Page 6 of 6