Preview
DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT
ALEXANDER SIRENA J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
Vv. AT STAMFORD
JEREMY WEINGARTEN and
RANDI WEINGARTEN JANUARY 16, 2024
PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S REPLY
TO OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-58 and § 11-10(c), the Plaintiff hereby submits this Sur-Reply
to Defendant’s Reply to Objection to Motion to Dismiss.
A. The Defendants’ October 18, 2023 Motion for Extension of Time (No. 105.00) was
Filed A_Full Week After Defendants Waived Their Right to Challenge Personal
Jurisdiction on October 11, 2023.
The Defendants waived their right to challenge personal jurisdiction when they failed to file a
motion to dismiss on or before October 11, 2023. The subsequent filing of Defendants’ Motion for
Extension of Time on October 18, 2023 did not restore Defendants’ already waived right to challenge
personal jurisdiction via a motion to dismiss.
Date Event
Aug. 9, 2023 Appearance; Motion for Extension of Time until Sept. 13, 2023 (Ex. A)
Sept. 8, 2023 Motion for Extension of Time until Oct. 11, 2023 (Ex. B)
Oct. 11, 2023 Responsive Pleading Due
Oct. 12, 2023 Defendants’ Personal Jurisdiction Waived
Oct. 18, 2023 Motion for Extension of Time until Nov. 20, 2023 (Ex. C)
Nov. 20, 2023 Responsive Pleading Due
Nov. 21, 2023 Motion for Extension of Time until Dec. 20, 2023 (Ex. D); Motion to Dismiss
The above timeline makes clear the Defendants waived their right to challenge personal jurisdiction
when they failed to move to dismiss or move for an extension of time on or before October 11, 2023.
The Defendants waited a full week after the deadline had passed to file a second Motion for Extension
of Time on October 18, 2023. The court’s granting of a request for additional time cannot be construed
1
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 4207€
as restoring Defendant’s already waived right to challenge personal jurisdiction. Roe v. Legionaries of
Christ, Docket No. X03 HHD-CV 16-608 1680-S, 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1134, at *11 (Conn. Super.
Ct. June 6, 2018) (finding that a “subsequently obtained extension of time does nothing to undo what
constitutes a waiver of a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction.”). The deadlines provided in the Practice
Book as well as decades of binding authority holding that jurisdiction is waived if not timely raised
will be rendered meaningless if parties are permitted to circumvent the rules of practice by filing
motions for extensions of time to resurrect previously waived rights. Indeed, our Supreme Court has
cautioned that “to allow a party to compromise these well established, unambiguous Practice Book
provisions would lead to a case-by-case analysis by the courts, which would lead to uncertainty of
application.” Pitchell, 247 Conn. at 436.
The Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff ignored cases such as Rick v. Montes, No. DBD-CV21-
6039767-S, 2022 Conn. Super. LEXIS 198 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 23, 2022), is misplaced. First, there
is a split of authority as to whether a motion for extension of time applies to motions to dismiss and,
second, even if they do, the Defendants have still waived personal jurisdiction by not moving to dismiss
before the expiration of the requested extensions.
1. Motions for Extension of Time Should Not Apply to Motions to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Because Practice Book § 10-30(b) is Clear and
Unambiguous.
“TM]any Connecticut courts have concluded that motions for extension of time do not apply to
motions to dismiss which attack personal jurisdiction.” USAA v. Rich & John’s Complete Chimney
Servs., LLC, No. DBD-CV19-6033356-S, 2020 Conn. Super. LEXIS 863, at *5 (Conn. Super. Ct. July
15, 2020). These courts generally rely on the clear language of Pitche// and the unambiguous language
ofthe Practice Book:
The upshot of Pitchell could hardly be clearer. The 30-day deadline for filing
motions to dismiss based on alleged lack of personal jurisdiction is a mandatory
deadline that must be complied with or the defendant will be deemed to have
2
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
waived all challenges he might have to the Court's jurisdiction over his person.
Extension of the deadline for any reason, on a motion for extension of time to file
a responsive pleading or otherwise, would be completely inconsistent with the
relevant language of the Practice Book, which makes no provision whatsoever for
such extensions. Granting extensions to some defendants and not others, moreover,
would surely lead to the very result that the Pitchell Court sought to avoid by
issuing its strongly worded decision . . .
Mazzone v. Carranza, No. CV07-5004401-S, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3035, at *5 (Conn. Super. Ct.
Oct. 19, 2007). See also Roe v. Legionaries of Christ, No. X03 HHD-CV16-6081680-S, 2018 Conn.
Super. LEXIS 1134, at *6 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 6, 2018) (finding that a motion for extension of time
cannot apply to motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction); Lake v. Catarious, No. NNH-
CV13-6006455-S, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 648, at *5 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 25, 2014) (finding that
defendant’s motion for extension of time did not put plaintiff on notice of the kind of motion to expect
and denying motion to dismiss as untimely); Dice v. Danbury Orthopedics Associates, PC, Docket No.
DBD-CV11-6006356-S, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 470, at *6 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2012) (finding
that defendants seeking to challenge personal jurisdiction cannot rely upon motions for extensions of
time which have not yet been granted because there is no guarantee that it will in fact be granted).
2. Even if Motions for Extension of Time Do Apply to Motions to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction, the Defendant’s Motion is Still Untimely Because it
Was Filed After the Requested Extension of Time Expired.
Even if motions for extension of time do apply to motions to dismiss, the Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss is still untimely. The Defendants rely on Rick v. Montes but overlook the key difference
between Rick and the instant case. In Rick, the defendant filed an appearance on July 2, 2021 and on
July 13, 2021 filed a Motion for Extension of Time until August 30, 2021. The defendant then moved
to dismiss on August 27, 2021—prior to the August 30 deadline. /d. at *2—3. Put more clearly, there
were no gaps between motions for extensions of time in Rick. In this case, the Defendants are
ignoring—or perhaps forgot—that there was a seven day lapse between the expiration of their second
Motion for Extension of Time and their third Motion for Extension of Time. The Defendants then
3
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
waited until one day after the expiration of their third Motion for Extension of Time to file their Motion
to Dismiss and fourth Motion for Extension of Time (erroneously dated October 18, 2023).
Regardless of which deadline the Defendants argue applies, the Motion to Dismiss was not
timely filed. Even without the lapse between the Defendants’ second and third motions for extension
of time, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was filed the day after their additional time elapsed. The
third Motion for Extension of Time requested 30 days until November 20, 2023 to file a responsive
pleading. A responsive pleading was therefore due on November 20, 2023 (the 30th day), not
November 21, 2023 (the 31st day). See USAA v. Rich & John’s Complete Chimney Servs., LLC, No.
DBD-CV19-6033356-S, 2020 Conn. Super. LEXIS 863, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 15, 2020) (finding
the “defendants filed a motion for extension of time requesting up to and including May 3, 2020” and
thus “had up to and including May 3, 2020 to file a responsive pleading”).
Under the rules of the Practice Book and the Supreme Court’s unambiguous holding in Pitchell
v. City of Hartford, 247 Conn. 422, 433 (1999), the Defendants waived their right to challenge personal
jurisdiction by not either moving to dismiss or filing a motion for extension of time on or before
October 11, 2023.
B. The Court Should Not Consider Defendants’ Forum Non Conveniens Argument
Because it is Raised for the First Time in a Reply and Because the Doctrine of Forum
Non Conveniens Does Not Apply to the Facts of This Case.
1. It Is Improper to Raise an Argument For the First Time in a Reply.
The Court should not entertain Defendant’s argument based on forum non conveniens because
it is improperly raised for the first time in Defendant’s reply. “It is well established that a party may
not raise a claim for the first time in a reply brief.” Limberger v. Burke Ridge Constr., LLC, No. HHD-
CV12-6037168-S, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3000, at *17 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2015). There can
be no doubt the Defendants were aware that Defendant Randi Weingarten is domiciled in New York.
As such, there is no reason this argument could not have been raised in the Defendants’ Motion to
4
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
Dismiss rather than in the Defendants’ Reply memorandum. Additionally, the Defendants have failed
to adequately brief the issue of forum non conveniens. For example, the Defendants’ Reply
memorandum provides no discussion of the standard this Court should apply, what factors are to be
weighed, or the circumstances in which dismissal for forum non conveniens is appropriate.' Therefore,
this argument—much like the Defendants’ personal jurisdiction—has been waived and should not be
considered by the Court.
2. Forum Non Conveniens Does Not Apply Because Defendant Randi
Weingarten’s Town of Residence Borders Connecticut and is Less than
10 Miles from Stamford, Connecticut.
Even if the Court chooses to entertain Defendants’ forum non conveniens argument, the Court
should not grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on that basis. The Supreme Court has stated that
“invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a drastic remedy . . . which the trial court must
approach with caution and restraint.” Durkin v. Intevac, 258 Conn. 454, 464 (2001). Accordingly, “the
trial court, in exercising its structured discretion, should place its thumb firmly on the plaintiff's side
of the scale... .” Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., 215 Conn. 490, 501-02 (1990).
The Appellate Court noted in Sabino v. Ruffolo, 19 Conn. App. 402, 406 (1989), that “[c]Jourts
invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens with caution, and only in exceptional circumstances
that demonstrate both inconvenience and hardship.” /d. (emphasis added). In Sabino, the Appellate
Court held it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss a case involving a New York defendant on the
grounds of forum non conveniens. /d. at 411. The Appellate Court explained:
The diverse laws, procedures and remedies available in the various states cause the
doctrine to be unworkable or unjust in many instances. Therefore, except where
extraordinary circumstances exist, the doctrine should not be applied by state
courts. Such circumstances may include, in combination, or, in some instances
standing alone, multiple parties, uniform child custody statutes or other uniform
' Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., 215 Conn. 490 (1990) and Sabino v. Ruffolo, 19 Conn.
App. 402 (1989), provide a thorough explanation of the factors Connecticut courts are to consider when
deciding whether to dismiss a case for forum non conveniens.
5
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
statutes, long arm statutes, complex litigation, or a great geographical distance
between the original forum and the locus of the cause of action.
Id. at 410 (emphasis added); see also Picketts, 215 Conn. at 513 (finding it was an abuse of discretion
to dismiss action against defendants from Canada due to forum non conveniens); Fudge v. Alliant
Foodservice, Inc., No. HHD-CV01-0812056-S, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2339, at *21 (Conn. Super.
Ct. July 12, 2002) (denying New York defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens).
This Court should take judicial notice that Port Chester, NY—the location of the collision—
and Rye Brook, NY—Defendant Randi Weingarten’s place of residence—border Fairfield County and
are less than 10 miles from Stamford, Connecticut.? See Google Maps Printout (Ex. E). Connecticut’s
jurisdiction over Defendant Randi Weingarten poses no inconvenience or hardship sufficient to justify
dismissal for forum non conveniens. Indeed, it has been noted that “the proximity of Connecticut to
New York—and especially Stamford (with Danbury perhaps able to make a similar argument) so close
to the border, that Connecticut can, in some instances, be more convenient to a New York resident than
a New York forum.” Brooks v. Galella, No. FST-CV22-6055704-S, 2023 Conn. Super. LEXIS 200, at
*31 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 17, 2023). Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss must be denied.
3. The Defendants’ Assertion that Plaintiff Could Pursue a Duplicative Lawsuit
in New York Counsels in Favor of Permitting the Action to Proceed against
Both Defendants in Connecticut.
The Defendants make the extraordinary argument that granting the Motion to Dismiss as to the
New York Defendant “could lead to plaintiff suing one defendant in New York and one defendant in
Connecticut.” Def’s. Reply at 3. Defendants further argue that “[a] duplicative lawsuit in New York
? See Conn. Code of Evid. § 2-1(c) (“A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to
reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) within the knowledge of people generally in the ordinary course
of human experience, or (2) generally accepted as true and capable of ready and unquestionable
demonstration.”); Nesko Corp. v. Fontaine, 19 Conn. Supp. 160, 162 (1954) (“It is established that
judicial notice may be taken of the geography of a state, the existence, location and population of its
counties, cities and villages, distance between well-known points, general routes of travel, etc.”).
6
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
would not serve the interests of justice. As such, it would be more appropriate for this matter to be
heard in New York ....” /d. The Defendants’ argument is flawed for two reasons. First, there is no
basis for dismissing Plaintiff's case against Defendant Jeremy Weingarten for forum non conveniens
because he is a resident of Stamford, CT. Second, it is not clear how the interests of judicial economy
would be better served by forcing Plaintiff to abandon the instant case and pursue the same claims
against the Defendants in New York, especially when two of the three parties live in Connecticut. Under
the Defendants’ logic, maintaining an action in Connecticut against a defendant from Rye Brook, NY
is too burdensome but a Connecticut plaintiff suing a defendant from Stamford, CT in a New York
court is both appropriate and efficient. The Court should reject the Defendants’ forum non conveniens
arguments and deny the Motion to Dismiss.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, in addition to those argued in Plaintiff's Objection, the Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss must be denied.
THE PLAINTIFF,
ALEXANDER SIRENA
BY. /s/420704
Matthew J. Forrest Esq.
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Rd., Suite 505
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Ph: 860-757-3828
Juris No. 420704
7
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed and/or electronically delivered on
the above captioned date to:
Penino & Moynihan LLP
5 Steep Hill Road
Weston, CT 06883
smonn@peninomoynihanlaw.com
/s/420704
Matthew J. Forrest, Esq.
8
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
EXHIBIT A
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
DKT NO: FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT
ALEXANDER SIRENA J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
Vv. AT STAMFORD
JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND
RANDY WEINGARTEN AUGUST 9, 2023
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD
The defendants, JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN, hereby move
for a thirty (30) day extension of time until September 13, 2023 to file a responsive pleading or
move with respect to the Complaint in order to meet with clients and investigate the facts and other
matters are pending. The Summons’ return date is August 1, 2023.
DEFENDANTS
JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN
By: /s/_415210
STEVEN J. MONN
PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP
5 Steep Hill Road
Weston, CT 06883
Firm Juris No.: 429593
(203) 739-0231
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the following mailed and/or e-mailed to the address(s) listed
below on the 9" day of August, 2023 to the following counsel of record or pro-se parties:
MATTHEW J. FORREST, ESQ
FORREST MCPADDEN, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALEXANDER SIRENA.
100 Great Meadow Rd., Ste 505
Wethersfield, CT 06109
860-757-3828
Kil@fim. legal
PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP
s/415210
STEVEN J. MONN (Juris 415210)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered:
GRANTED / DENIED
BY THE COURT
JUDGE / CLERK
EXHIBIT B
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 4207¢
DKT NO: FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT
ALEXANDER SIRENA J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
Vv. AT STAMFORD
JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND
RANDY WEINGARTEN SEPTEMBER 8, 2023
SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD
The defendants, JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN, hereby move
fora thirty (30) day extension of time until October 11, 2023 to file a responsive pleading or move
with respect to the Complaint in order to meet with clients and investigate the facts and other
matters are pending. The Summons’ return date is August 1, 2023.
DEFENDANTS
JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN
By: /s/_415210
STEVEN J. MONN
PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP
5 Steep Hill Road
Weston, CT 06883
Firm Juris No.: 429593
(203) 739-0231
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the following mailed and/or e-mailed to the address(s) listed
below on the 8" day of September, 2023 to the following counsel of record or pro-se parties:
MATTHEW J. FORREST, ESQ
FORREST MCPADDEN, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALEXANDER SIRENA.
100 Great Meadow Rd., Ste 505
Wethersfield, CT 06109
860-757-3828
Kil@fim. legal
PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP
s/415210
STEVEN J. MONN (Juris 415210)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered:
GRANTED / DENIED
BY THE COURT
JUDGE / CLERK
EXHIBIT C
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
DKT NO: FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT
ALEXANDER SIRENA J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
Vv. AT STAMFORD
JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND
RANDY WEINGARTEN October 18, 2023
THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD
The defendants, JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN, hereby move
for a thirty (30) day extension of time until November 20, 2023 to file a responsive pleading or
move with respect to the Complaint in order to meet with clients and investigate the facts and other
matters are pending. The Summons’ return date is August 1, 2023.
DEFENDANTS
JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN
By: /s/_415210
STEVEN J. MONN
PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP
5 Steep Hill Road
Weston, CT 06883
Firm Juris No.: 429593
(203) 739-0231
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the following mailed and/or e-mailed to the address(s) listed
below on the 18" day of October, 2023 to the following counsel of record or pro-se parties:
MATTHEW J. FORREST, ESQ
FORREST MCPADDEN, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALEXANDER SIRENA.
100 Great Meadow Rd., Ste 505
Wethersfield, CT 06109
860-757-3828
Kil@fim. legal
PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP
s/415210
STEVEN J. MONN (Juris 415210)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered:
GRANTED / DENIED
BY THE COURT
JUDGE / CLERK
EXHIBIT D
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 420704
DKT NO: FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT
ALEXANDER SIRENA. J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
Vv. AT STAMFORD
JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND
RANDY WEINGARTEN October 18, 2023
FOURTH MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD
The defendants, JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN, hereby move
for a thirty (30) day extension of time until December 20, 2023 to file a responsive pleading or
move with respect to the Complaint in order to meet with clients and investigate the facts and other
matters are pending.
DEFENDANTS
JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN
By: /s/_415210
STEVEN J. MONN
PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP
5 Steep Hill Road
Weston, CT 06883
Firm Juris No.: 429593
(203) 739-0231
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the following mailed and/or e-mailed to the address(s) listed
below on the 21" day of November, 2023 to the following counsel of record or pro-se parties:
MATTHEW J. FORREST, ESQ
FORREST MCPADDEN, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALEXANDER SIRENA.
100 Great Meadow Rd., Ste 505
Wethersfield, CT 06109
860-757-3828
Kjl@fm.legal
PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP
s/415210
STEVEN J. MONN (Juris 415210)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered:
GRANTED / DENIED
BY THE COURT
JUDGE / CLERK
EXHIBIT E
Forrest McPadden LLC
100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839
Juris No. 4207¢
Google Maps
EE
Y
ch 4109 cson RIDGE
| Gx)39) REDDING
Amawail ee
7 we
fag we
a
NA
Heights:
exo
Aye
Bedford Hil
) @
M6
6
bay Rigg
j/ AS
Ss
a?
@ oT j(s
on My)
om
a NorTit
“x
‘New
Sg
‘Ammo
if
ed
29
is
eS
adi
Lf WG eter
a ah Pus
!
(ig
burg
@\ hay
ex Gy
‘yy
fs
ylang)
fou} it Vernol
ip’
if
i
Gia)
z gle a
Map data ©2024 Google 2 mit
Preview
DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT ALEXANDER SIRENA J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK Vv. AT STAMFORD JEREMY WEINGARTEN and RANDI WEINGARTEN JANUARY 16, 2024 PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-58 and § 11-10(c), the Plaintiff hereby submits this Sur-Reply to Defendant’s Reply to Objection to Motion to Dismiss. A. The Defendants’ October 18, 2023 Motion for Extension of Time (No. 105.00) was Filed A_Full Week After Defendants Waived Their Right to Challenge Personal Jurisdiction on October 11, 2023. The Defendants waived their right to challenge personal jurisdiction when they failed to file a motion to dismiss on or before October 11, 2023. The subsequent filing of Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time on October 18, 2023 did not restore Defendants’ already waived right to challenge personal jurisdiction via a motion to dismiss. Date Event Aug. 9, 2023 Appearance; Motion for Extension of Time until Sept. 13, 2023 (Ex. A) Sept. 8, 2023 Motion for Extension of Time until Oct. 11, 2023 (Ex. B) Oct. 11, 2023 Responsive Pleading Due Oct. 12, 2023 Defendants’ Personal Jurisdiction Waived Oct. 18, 2023 Motion for Extension of Time until Nov. 20, 2023 (Ex. C) Nov. 20, 2023 Responsive Pleading Due Nov. 21, 2023 Motion for Extension of Time until Dec. 20, 2023 (Ex. D); Motion to Dismiss The above timeline makes clear the Defendants waived their right to challenge personal jurisdiction when they failed to move to dismiss or move for an extension of time on or before October 11, 2023. The Defendants waited a full week after the deadline had passed to file a second Motion for Extension of Time on October 18, 2023. The court’s granting of a request for additional time cannot be construed 1 Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 4207€ as restoring Defendant’s already waived right to challenge personal jurisdiction. Roe v. Legionaries of Christ, Docket No. X03 HHD-CV 16-608 1680-S, 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1134, at *11 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 6, 2018) (finding that a “subsequently obtained extension of time does nothing to undo what constitutes a waiver of a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction.”). The deadlines provided in the Practice Book as well as decades of binding authority holding that jurisdiction is waived if not timely raised will be rendered meaningless if parties are permitted to circumvent the rules of practice by filing motions for extensions of time to resurrect previously waived rights. Indeed, our Supreme Court has cautioned that “to allow a party to compromise these well established, unambiguous Practice Book provisions would lead to a case-by-case analysis by the courts, which would lead to uncertainty of application.” Pitchell, 247 Conn. at 436. The Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff ignored cases such as Rick v. Montes, No. DBD-CV21- 6039767-S, 2022 Conn. Super. LEXIS 198 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 23, 2022), is misplaced. First, there is a split of authority as to whether a motion for extension of time applies to motions to dismiss and, second, even if they do, the Defendants have still waived personal jurisdiction by not moving to dismiss before the expiration of the requested extensions. 1. Motions for Extension of Time Should Not Apply to Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Because Practice Book § 10-30(b) is Clear and Unambiguous. “TM]any Connecticut courts have concluded that motions for extension of time do not apply to motions to dismiss which attack personal jurisdiction.” USAA v. Rich & John’s Complete Chimney Servs., LLC, No. DBD-CV19-6033356-S, 2020 Conn. Super. LEXIS 863, at *5 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 15, 2020). These courts generally rely on the clear language of Pitche// and the unambiguous language ofthe Practice Book: The upshot of Pitchell could hardly be clearer. The 30-day deadline for filing motions to dismiss based on alleged lack of personal jurisdiction is a mandatory deadline that must be complied with or the defendant will be deemed to have 2 Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 waived all challenges he might have to the Court's jurisdiction over his person. Extension of the deadline for any reason, on a motion for extension of time to file a responsive pleading or otherwise, would be completely inconsistent with the relevant language of the Practice Book, which makes no provision whatsoever for such extensions. Granting extensions to some defendants and not others, moreover, would surely lead to the very result that the Pitchell Court sought to avoid by issuing its strongly worded decision . . . Mazzone v. Carranza, No. CV07-5004401-S, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3035, at *5 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2007). See also Roe v. Legionaries of Christ, No. X03 HHD-CV16-6081680-S, 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1134, at *6 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 6, 2018) (finding that a motion for extension of time cannot apply to motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction); Lake v. Catarious, No. NNH- CV13-6006455-S, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 648, at *5 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 25, 2014) (finding that defendant’s motion for extension of time did not put plaintiff on notice of the kind of motion to expect and denying motion to dismiss as untimely); Dice v. Danbury Orthopedics Associates, PC, Docket No. DBD-CV11-6006356-S, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 470, at *6 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2012) (finding that defendants seeking to challenge personal jurisdiction cannot rely upon motions for extensions of time which have not yet been granted because there is no guarantee that it will in fact be granted). 2. Even if Motions for Extension of Time Do Apply to Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the Defendant’s Motion is Still Untimely Because it Was Filed After the Requested Extension of Time Expired. Even if motions for extension of time do apply to motions to dismiss, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is still untimely. The Defendants rely on Rick v. Montes but overlook the key difference between Rick and the instant case. In Rick, the defendant filed an appearance on July 2, 2021 and on July 13, 2021 filed a Motion for Extension of Time until August 30, 2021. The defendant then moved to dismiss on August 27, 2021—prior to the August 30 deadline. /d. at *2—3. Put more clearly, there were no gaps between motions for extensions of time in Rick. In this case, the Defendants are ignoring—or perhaps forgot—that there was a seven day lapse between the expiration of their second Motion for Extension of Time and their third Motion for Extension of Time. The Defendants then 3 Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 waited until one day after the expiration of their third Motion for Extension of Time to file their Motion to Dismiss and fourth Motion for Extension of Time (erroneously dated October 18, 2023). Regardless of which deadline the Defendants argue applies, the Motion to Dismiss was not timely filed. Even without the lapse between the Defendants’ second and third motions for extension of time, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was filed the day after their additional time elapsed. The third Motion for Extension of Time requested 30 days until November 20, 2023 to file a responsive pleading. A responsive pleading was therefore due on November 20, 2023 (the 30th day), not November 21, 2023 (the 31st day). See USAA v. Rich & John’s Complete Chimney Servs., LLC, No. DBD-CV19-6033356-S, 2020 Conn. Super. LEXIS 863, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 15, 2020) (finding the “defendants filed a motion for extension of time requesting up to and including May 3, 2020” and thus “had up to and including May 3, 2020 to file a responsive pleading”). Under the rules of the Practice Book and the Supreme Court’s unambiguous holding in Pitchell v. City of Hartford, 247 Conn. 422, 433 (1999), the Defendants waived their right to challenge personal jurisdiction by not either moving to dismiss or filing a motion for extension of time on or before October 11, 2023. B. The Court Should Not Consider Defendants’ Forum Non Conveniens Argument Because it is Raised for the First Time in a Reply and Because the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Does Not Apply to the Facts of This Case. 1. It Is Improper to Raise an Argument For the First Time in a Reply. The Court should not entertain Defendant’s argument based on forum non conveniens because it is improperly raised for the first time in Defendant’s reply. “It is well established that a party may not raise a claim for the first time in a reply brief.” Limberger v. Burke Ridge Constr., LLC, No. HHD- CV12-6037168-S, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3000, at *17 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2015). There can be no doubt the Defendants were aware that Defendant Randi Weingarten is domiciled in New York. As such, there is no reason this argument could not have been raised in the Defendants’ Motion to 4 Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 Dismiss rather than in the Defendants’ Reply memorandum. Additionally, the Defendants have failed to adequately brief the issue of forum non conveniens. For example, the Defendants’ Reply memorandum provides no discussion of the standard this Court should apply, what factors are to be weighed, or the circumstances in which dismissal for forum non conveniens is appropriate.' Therefore, this argument—much like the Defendants’ personal jurisdiction—has been waived and should not be considered by the Court. 2. Forum Non Conveniens Does Not Apply Because Defendant Randi Weingarten’s Town of Residence Borders Connecticut and is Less than 10 Miles from Stamford, Connecticut. Even if the Court chooses to entertain Defendants’ forum non conveniens argument, the Court should not grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on that basis. The Supreme Court has stated that “invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a drastic remedy . . . which the trial court must approach with caution and restraint.” Durkin v. Intevac, 258 Conn. 454, 464 (2001). Accordingly, “the trial court, in exercising its structured discretion, should place its thumb firmly on the plaintiff's side of the scale... .” Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., 215 Conn. 490, 501-02 (1990). The Appellate Court noted in Sabino v. Ruffolo, 19 Conn. App. 402, 406 (1989), that “[c]Jourts invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens with caution, and only in exceptional circumstances that demonstrate both inconvenience and hardship.” /d. (emphasis added). In Sabino, the Appellate Court held it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss a case involving a New York defendant on the grounds of forum non conveniens. /d. at 411. The Appellate Court explained: The diverse laws, procedures and remedies available in the various states cause the doctrine to be unworkable or unjust in many instances. Therefore, except where extraordinary circumstances exist, the doctrine should not be applied by state courts. Such circumstances may include, in combination, or, in some instances standing alone, multiple parties, uniform child custody statutes or other uniform ' Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., 215 Conn. 490 (1990) and Sabino v. Ruffolo, 19 Conn. App. 402 (1989), provide a thorough explanation of the factors Connecticut courts are to consider when deciding whether to dismiss a case for forum non conveniens. 5 Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 statutes, long arm statutes, complex litigation, or a great geographical distance between the original forum and the locus of the cause of action. Id. at 410 (emphasis added); see also Picketts, 215 Conn. at 513 (finding it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss action against defendants from Canada due to forum non conveniens); Fudge v. Alliant Foodservice, Inc., No. HHD-CV01-0812056-S, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2339, at *21 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 12, 2002) (denying New York defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens). This Court should take judicial notice that Port Chester, NY—the location of the collision— and Rye Brook, NY—Defendant Randi Weingarten’s place of residence—border Fairfield County and are less than 10 miles from Stamford, Connecticut.? See Google Maps Printout (Ex. E). Connecticut’s jurisdiction over Defendant Randi Weingarten poses no inconvenience or hardship sufficient to justify dismissal for forum non conveniens. Indeed, it has been noted that “the proximity of Connecticut to New York—and especially Stamford (with Danbury perhaps able to make a similar argument) so close to the border, that Connecticut can, in some instances, be more convenient to a New York resident than a New York forum.” Brooks v. Galella, No. FST-CV22-6055704-S, 2023 Conn. Super. LEXIS 200, at *31 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 17, 2023). Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss must be denied. 3. The Defendants’ Assertion that Plaintiff Could Pursue a Duplicative Lawsuit in New York Counsels in Favor of Permitting the Action to Proceed against Both Defendants in Connecticut. The Defendants make the extraordinary argument that granting the Motion to Dismiss as to the New York Defendant “could lead to plaintiff suing one defendant in New York and one defendant in Connecticut.” Def’s. Reply at 3. Defendants further argue that “[a] duplicative lawsuit in New York ? See Conn. Code of Evid. § 2-1(c) (“A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) within the knowledge of people generally in the ordinary course of human experience, or (2) generally accepted as true and capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration.”); Nesko Corp. v. Fontaine, 19 Conn. Supp. 160, 162 (1954) (“It is established that judicial notice may be taken of the geography of a state, the existence, location and population of its counties, cities and villages, distance between well-known points, general routes of travel, etc.”). 6 Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 would not serve the interests of justice. As such, it would be more appropriate for this matter to be heard in New York ....” /d. The Defendants’ argument is flawed for two reasons. First, there is no basis for dismissing Plaintiff's case against Defendant Jeremy Weingarten for forum non conveniens because he is a resident of Stamford, CT. Second, it is not clear how the interests of judicial economy would be better served by forcing Plaintiff to abandon the instant case and pursue the same claims against the Defendants in New York, especially when two of the three parties live in Connecticut. Under the Defendants’ logic, maintaining an action in Connecticut against a defendant from Rye Brook, NY is too burdensome but a Connecticut plaintiff suing a defendant from Stamford, CT in a New York court is both appropriate and efficient. The Court should reject the Defendants’ forum non conveniens arguments and deny the Motion to Dismiss. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, in addition to those argued in Plaintiff's Objection, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss must be denied. THE PLAINTIFF, ALEXANDER SIRENA BY. /s/420704 Matthew J. Forrest Esq. Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Rd., Suite 505 Wethersfield, CT 06109 Ph: 860-757-3828 Juris No. 420704 7 Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed and/or electronically delivered on the above captioned date to: Penino & Moynihan LLP 5 Steep Hill Road Weston, CT 06883 smonn@peninomoynihanlaw.com /s/420704 Matthew J. Forrest, Esq. 8 Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 EXHIBIT A Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 DKT NO: FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT ALEXANDER SIRENA J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK Vv. AT STAMFORD JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN AUGUST 9, 2023 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD The defendants, JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN, hereby move for a thirty (30) day extension of time until September 13, 2023 to file a responsive pleading or move with respect to the Complaint in order to meet with clients and investigate the facts and other matters are pending. The Summons’ return date is August 1, 2023. DEFENDANTS JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN By: /s/_415210 STEVEN J. MONN PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP 5 Steep Hill Road Weston, CT 06883 Firm Juris No.: 429593 (203) 739-0231 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the following mailed and/or e-mailed to the address(s) listed below on the 9" day of August, 2023 to the following counsel of record or pro-se parties: MATTHEW J. FORREST, ESQ FORREST MCPADDEN, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXANDER SIRENA. 100 Great Meadow Rd., Ste 505 Wethersfield, CT 06109 860-757-3828 Kil@fim. legal PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP s/415210 STEVEN J. MONN (Juris 415210) COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ORDER The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered: GRANTED / DENIED BY THE COURT JUDGE / CLERK EXHIBIT B Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 4207¢ DKT NO: FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT ALEXANDER SIRENA J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK Vv. AT STAMFORD JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD The defendants, JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN, hereby move fora thirty (30) day extension of time until October 11, 2023 to file a responsive pleading or move with respect to the Complaint in order to meet with clients and investigate the facts and other matters are pending. The Summons’ return date is August 1, 2023. DEFENDANTS JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN By: /s/_415210 STEVEN J. MONN PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP 5 Steep Hill Road Weston, CT 06883 Firm Juris No.: 429593 (203) 739-0231 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the following mailed and/or e-mailed to the address(s) listed below on the 8" day of September, 2023 to the following counsel of record or pro-se parties: MATTHEW J. FORREST, ESQ FORREST MCPADDEN, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXANDER SIRENA. 100 Great Meadow Rd., Ste 505 Wethersfield, CT 06109 860-757-3828 Kil@fim. legal PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP s/415210 STEVEN J. MONN (Juris 415210) COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ORDER The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered: GRANTED / DENIED BY THE COURT JUDGE / CLERK EXHIBIT C Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 DKT NO: FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT ALEXANDER SIRENA J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK Vv. AT STAMFORD JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN October 18, 2023 THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD The defendants, JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN, hereby move for a thirty (30) day extension of time until November 20, 2023 to file a responsive pleading or move with respect to the Complaint in order to meet with clients and investigate the facts and other matters are pending. The Summons’ return date is August 1, 2023. DEFENDANTS JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN By: /s/_415210 STEVEN J. MONN PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP 5 Steep Hill Road Weston, CT 06883 Firm Juris No.: 429593 (203) 739-0231 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the following mailed and/or e-mailed to the address(s) listed below on the 18" day of October, 2023 to the following counsel of record or pro-se parties: MATTHEW J. FORREST, ESQ FORREST MCPADDEN, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXANDER SIRENA. 100 Great Meadow Rd., Ste 505 Wethersfield, CT 06109 860-757-3828 Kil@fim. legal PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP s/415210 STEVEN J. MONN (Juris 415210) COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ORDER The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered: GRANTED / DENIED BY THE COURT JUDGE / CLERK EXHIBIT D Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 420704 DKT NO: FST-CV23-6062378-S SUPERIOR COURT ALEXANDER SIRENA. J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK Vv. AT STAMFORD JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN October 18, 2023 FOURTH MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD The defendants, JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN, hereby move for a thirty (30) day extension of time until December 20, 2023 to file a responsive pleading or move with respect to the Complaint in order to meet with clients and investigate the facts and other matters are pending. DEFENDANTS JEREMY WEINGARTEN AND RANDY WEINGARTEN By: /s/_415210 STEVEN J. MONN PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP 5 Steep Hill Road Weston, CT 06883 Firm Juris No.: 429593 (203) 739-0231 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the following mailed and/or e-mailed to the address(s) listed below on the 21" day of November, 2023 to the following counsel of record or pro-se parties: MATTHEW J. FORREST, ESQ FORREST MCPADDEN, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXANDER SIRENA. 100 Great Meadow Rd., Ste 505 Wethersfield, CT 06109 860-757-3828 Kjl@fm.legal PENINO & MOYNIHAN, LLP s/415210 STEVEN J. MONN (Juris 415210) COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ORDER The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered: GRANTED / DENIED BY THE COURT JUDGE / CLERK EXHIBIT E Forrest McPadden LLC 100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 505, Putnam Park * Wethersfield, CT 06109 * 860.757.3828 * Facsimile: 860.372.4839 Juris No. 4207¢ Google Maps EE Y ch 4109 cson RIDGE | Gx)39) REDDING Amawail ee 7 we fag we a NA Heights: exo Aye Bedford Hil ) @ M6 6 bay Rigg j/ AS Ss a? @ oT j(s on My) om a NorTit “x ‘New Sg ‘Ammo if ed 29 is eS adi Lf WG eter a ah Pus ! (ig burg @\ hay ex Gy ‘yy fs ylang) fou} it Vernol ip’ if i Gia) z gle a Map data ©2024 Google 2 mit