Preview
DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV23-6124723-S : SUPERIOR COURT
MICHAEL ALTOBELLI and : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
ETTORE ALTOBELLI
v. : AT BRIDGEPORT
ABUBAKAR SHEIKH and : FEBRUARY 5, 2024
UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
By way of introduction, this matter arises from a automobile collision caused by
defendants, Abubakar Sheikh and Tipu Sheikh in the use and operation of a motor vehicle.
Plaintiffs move to consolidate this action with, Michael Altobelli et al, v. Tipu Sheikh, Docket
No.: FBT-CV-24-6129877-S where an action has been filed as against defendant, Tipu
Sheikh, the owner of the motor vehicle negligently operated by defendant, Abubakar
Sheikh. That these two cases are currently pending before the Bridgeport Superior Court,
County of Fairfield. That plaintiffs learned of Tipu Sheikh’s ownership of the subject motor
vehicle through discovery. That the same defense counsel has appeared on behalf of the
individual defendants.
A motion to consolidate is governed by Practice Book §9–5(a), which provides, in
pertinent part: “Whenever there are two or more separate actions which should be tried
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED
together, the judicial authority may, upon the motion of any party or upon its own motion,
order that the actions be consolidated for trial.” The question of whether two actions ought
to be consolidated is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. See Rode v. Adley
Express Co., Inc., 130 Conn. 274, 277, 33 A.2d 329 (1943). Independent of statutory
authority, courts of general jurisdiction have inherent power to consolidate different causes,
or order them tried together, when the circumstances authorize such course. Id at 277.
Moreover courts have broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried
or heard so that the business of the Court may be dispatched with expedition and economy
while providing justice to the parties.
It is respectfully submitted that these two cases involve identical questions of law
and fact and the consolidate of which would avoid expense, delay and the inconvenience
of separate trials. Furthermore depositions which are already scheduled can be combined
as many of the questions which will be asked will be identical from one case to the other.
This will reduce attorney time as well as council for both plaintiffs and defendants can
appear at one set of depositions and one set of court appearances instead of multiple.
It is clear, that because of the similarities in the general facts, that there will be
sufficient overlap with the witnesses that it makes little sense for the two cases to advance
on separate tracks during discovery. If the cases are not consolidated there will be
duplication of discovery resulting in unnecessary expense and a waste of scarce judicial
resources. Moreover, consolidation will not result in prejudice to any party.
Additionally, consolidation would insure that verdicts or decisions on both matters
are consistent and assist in the orderly and timely resolution of both civil actions.
Defense counsel may argue that not all of the issues in each case are identical,
however, this is of no moment as courts have consistently found that even where there are
some questions that are not in common, consolidation is in no way precluded. See Mola
v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Superior Court, Docket No. CV 98 0167635.
Based upon the foregoing it is respectfully requested that these two cases be
consolidated.
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED
PLAINTIFFS, MICHAEL ALTOBELLI and
ETTORE ALTOBELLI
By: /s/ 418856
Michael R. Denkovich, Esq.
Karayiannis & Denkovich, PC
P.O. Box 229
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601
Firm Juris No.: 443839
Tel: (203) 870-0877
ORDER
The foregoing Motion, having been heard by this Court, it is hereby ordered:
GRANTED / DENIED
BY THE COURT,
_____________________________
Judge/Clerk
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was emailed this day as follows:
In the matter of MICHAEL ALTOBELLI, Et Al v. ABUBAKAR SHEIKH, Et Al
DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV23-6124723-S
Mazza & Welch
99 Hawley Lane, Suite 1103
Stratford, CT 06614
VIA EMAIL: dsanchez@geico.com
Nuzzo & Roberts LLC
One Town Center
P.O. Box 747
Cheshire, CT 06410
VIA EMAIL: recep@nuzzo-roberts.com
In the matter of MICHAEL ALTOBELLI, Et Al v. TIPU SHEIKH
DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV24-6129877-S
Mazza & Welch
99 Hawley Lane, Suite 1103
Stratford, CT 06614
VIA EMAIL: dsanchez@geico.com
BY: 418856
Michael R. Denkovich, Esq.
Preview
DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV23-6124723-S : SUPERIOR COURT MICHAEL ALTOBELLI and : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD ETTORE ALTOBELLI v. : AT BRIDGEPORT ABUBAKAR SHEIKH and : FEBRUARY 5, 2024 UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE By way of introduction, this matter arises from a automobile collision caused by defendants, Abubakar Sheikh and Tipu Sheikh in the use and operation of a motor vehicle. Plaintiffs move to consolidate this action with, Michael Altobelli et al, v. Tipu Sheikh, Docket No.: FBT-CV-24-6129877-S where an action has been filed as against defendant, Tipu Sheikh, the owner of the motor vehicle negligently operated by defendant, Abubakar Sheikh. That these two cases are currently pending before the Bridgeport Superior Court, County of Fairfield. That plaintiffs learned of Tipu Sheikh’s ownership of the subject motor vehicle through discovery. That the same defense counsel has appeared on behalf of the individual defendants. A motion to consolidate is governed by Practice Book §9–5(a), which provides, in pertinent part: “Whenever there are two or more separate actions which should be tried ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED together, the judicial authority may, upon the motion of any party or upon its own motion, order that the actions be consolidated for trial.” The question of whether two actions ought to be consolidated is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. See Rode v. Adley Express Co., Inc., 130 Conn. 274, 277, 33 A.2d 329 (1943). Independent of statutory authority, courts of general jurisdiction have inherent power to consolidate different causes, or order them tried together, when the circumstances authorize such course. Id at 277. Moreover courts have broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried or heard so that the business of the Court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties. It is respectfully submitted that these two cases involve identical questions of law and fact and the consolidate of which would avoid expense, delay and the inconvenience of separate trials. Furthermore depositions which are already scheduled can be combined as many of the questions which will be asked will be identical from one case to the other. This will reduce attorney time as well as council for both plaintiffs and defendants can appear at one set of depositions and one set of court appearances instead of multiple. It is clear, that because of the similarities in the general facts, that there will be sufficient overlap with the witnesses that it makes little sense for the two cases to advance on separate tracks during discovery. If the cases are not consolidated there will be duplication of discovery resulting in unnecessary expense and a waste of scarce judicial resources. Moreover, consolidation will not result in prejudice to any party. Additionally, consolidation would insure that verdicts or decisions on both matters are consistent and assist in the orderly and timely resolution of both civil actions. Defense counsel may argue that not all of the issues in each case are identical, however, this is of no moment as courts have consistently found that even where there are some questions that are not in common, consolidation is in no way precluded. See Mola v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Superior Court, Docket No. CV 98 0167635. Based upon the foregoing it is respectfully requested that these two cases be consolidated. ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED PLAINTIFFS, MICHAEL ALTOBELLI and ETTORE ALTOBELLI By: /s/ 418856 Michael R. Denkovich, Esq. Karayiannis & Denkovich, PC P.O. Box 229 Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 Firm Juris No.: 443839 Tel: (203) 870-0877 ORDER The foregoing Motion, having been heard by this Court, it is hereby ordered: GRANTED / DENIED BY THE COURT, _____________________________ Judge/Clerk CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was emailed this day as follows: In the matter of MICHAEL ALTOBELLI, Et Al v. ABUBAKAR SHEIKH, Et Al DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV23-6124723-S Mazza & Welch 99 Hawley Lane, Suite 1103 Stratford, CT 06614 VIA EMAIL: dsanchez@geico.com Nuzzo & Roberts LLC One Town Center P.O. Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 VIA EMAIL: recep@nuzzo-roberts.com In the matter of MICHAEL ALTOBELLI, Et Al v. TIPU SHEIKH DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV24-6129877-S Mazza & Welch 99 Hawley Lane, Suite 1103 Stratford, CT 06614 VIA EMAIL: dsanchez@geico.com BY: 418856 Michael R. Denkovich, Esq.