Preview
DOCKET NO.: HHD-CV23-5080871-S : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
JOHN ALAN SAKON
: AT HARTFORD
v.
: FEBRUARY 23, 2024
LINIDA S. SMITH, PHD, LLC
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
The Defendant, Linda S. Smith, PhD, LLC hereby objects to the plaintiff’s Motion to
Consolidate (Docket Entry No. 106.00) dated February 14, 2024, which seeks to consolidate the
present action (hereinafter referred to as the “2023 Action”) with the civil action entitled Sakon v.
Linda S. Smith, et al, Docket No. HHD-CV20-6136800-S (hereinafter referred to as the “2020
Action”).
Consolidation of the two cases would be unduly prejudicial because the 2020 Action was
instituted nearly three years before the 2023 Action and parties have dispositive motions pending
currently pending. Moreover, the plaintiff has instituted the 2023 Action against Linda S. Smith,
PhD, LLC in an attempt to evade the Court’s dismissal of the same claims against Linda S. Smith,
PhD, LLC in the 2020 Action.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff instituted a civil action entitled John Alan Sakon v. Linda S. Smith, et al.,
Docket No. HHD-CV20-6136500-S, pending in the Hartford Superior Court, against Dr. Smith
her business, Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC by service of a writ, summons and Complaint dated
MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103
860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459
103413417
December 22, 2020.1 Initially, the Complaint sounded in six counts and contains allegations
pertaining to the timing and the content of the Custody Evaluation prepared by Dr. Smith in the
Family Case. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against the
Defendant, Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. See 2020 Action, Entry No. 111.00. Subsequently, the
Plaintiff attempted to cite the Defendant, Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC, back into the 2020 Action.
See 2020 Action, Entry No. 114.00. The Court denied the Plaintiff’s attempts to bring the
Defendant, Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC, back into the 2020 Action. See 2020 Action, Entry No.
114.86. The only remaining defendant in the 2020 Action is Linda S. Smith in her individual
capacity. Defendant has clearly articulated their intent to file a motion for summary judgment in
the 2020 Action. See 2020 Action, Entry No. 159.00.
By way of complaint dated October 6, 2023, the Plaintiff initiated the 2023 Action
against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. Since the Court denied the Plaintiff’s attempts to bring a
claim against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC in the 2020 Action, the Plaintiff initiated a second
action against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. The plaintiff’s Complaint is nearly identical to the
operative complaint (Third Amended Complaint) in the Plaintiff’s 2020 Action against Linda S.
Smith, and her businesses Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. The Defendant has filed a Motion to
Dismiss in the 2023 Action, which is currently pending before the Court. See 2023 Action,
Entry No. 103.00. This Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal based on the prior pending action
1 The Defendants request that this Court take judicial notice of the filings and proceedings in the 2020 Action.
2
MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103
860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459
103413417
doctrine, as this Court has already adjudicated that Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC not a proper
party.
While the Defendant does not dispute the assertion in the Motion to Consolidate that both
cases contain identical allegations, this is far outweighed by the prejudice that the Defendant would
suffer should the cases be consolidated. As such, the plaintiff’s Motion should be denied.
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
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 together, the judicial
authority may, upon the motion of any party . . . order that the actions be consolidated for trial.”
Consolidation is appropriate where it will expedite the court’s business without creating an
injustice to the parties. Rode v. Adley Express Co., 130 Conn. 274, 277, 33 A.2d 329 (1943). “It
has long been held that the decision to consolidate . . . the trial of different actions is within the
sound discretion of the trial court.” Alpha Crane Service v. Capitol Crane, 6 Conn. App. 60, 68,
504 A.2d 1376, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 808 (1986). A motion to consolidate should be denied
where a party is able to demonstrate that prejudice would result should the motion be granted. See
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Baldino, 2002 WL 1952618, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 24, 2002).
Consolidation of the 2020 Action with the 2023 would cause substantial hardship and
prejudice to Defendants and would also severely hamper Defendants’ ability to defend themselves.
Although both actions contain the same allegations against each defendant, this is not the sole
3
MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103
860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459
103413417
governing factor in deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate. The court must consider
the prejudice to the opposing party when ruling on such a motion.
Defendants will suffer prejudice in the first instance due to the fact that the claims against
Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC were dismissed in the 2020 Action, and the plaintiff now seeks to re-
institute these claims less than three months before the trial date. The plaintiff has a significant
head start on discovery and preparation of its case. Whereas the Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D,
LLC has only had since the inception of the 2023 Action to begin constructing her defense.
Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending before
the Court. As such, Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC has not even had the opportunity to
exchange discovery or depose the plaintiff and witnesses. Trial in the 2020 Action is scheduled
for April 30, 2024, less than three months from today. No trial date has been assigned in the
2023 Action.
Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC would be completely unprepared to go forward with
trial on April 30, 2024. The trial date is less than a year from the return date of the 2023 Action
and potentially prior to the Court’s decision on the Motion to Dismiss. Consolidation would force
Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC into an unfairly short period of time in which to prepare
their case, on top of preventing them from effectively conducting any discovery.
Most significantly, however, the Plaintiff’s filing of the 2023 Action is his attempt to
circumvent this Court’s ruling dismissing Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC from the 2020 Action. This
Court has already made the determination in the 2020 Action that the Plaintiff cannot pursue these
4
MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103
860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459
103413417
exact claims against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. The Plaintiff then proceeded to file the 2023
Action naming Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC as a defendant, and now seeks to consolidate the two
cases. The issue of whether Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC is a proper defendant in the 2020 Action
has already been adjudicated. This Court has already ruled that it is not, and by filing the 2023
Action and seeking to consolidate it with the 2020 Action, the Plaintiff fails to abide by this Court’s
ruling.
III. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Defendant respectfully requests that this
Court deny the Motion to Consolidate.
DEFENDANT,
LIND S. SMITH, PHD, LLC
By: /s/ Megan H. DeFrank
Megan H. DeFrank
mdefrank@morrisonmahoney.com
Cara D. Joyce
cjoyce@morrisonmahoney.com
Morrison Mahoney LLP
One Constitution Plaza, 10th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860-616-4441
Fax: 860-244-3800
5
MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103
860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459
103413417
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on
February 23, 2024 to the following counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written
consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of
record who were electronically served:
John Alan Sakon
Pro se
28 Fenwick Drive
Farmington, CT 06032
(johnsakon@yahoo.com)
By: /s/ Megan H. DeFrank
Megan H. DeFrank
6
MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103
860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459
103413417
Preview
DOCKET NO.: HHD-CV23-5080871-S : SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD JOHN ALAN SAKON : AT HARTFORD v. : FEBRUARY 23, 2024 LINIDA S. SMITH, PHD, LLC OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE The Defendant, Linda S. Smith, PhD, LLC hereby objects to the plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (Docket Entry No. 106.00) dated February 14, 2024, which seeks to consolidate the present action (hereinafter referred to as the “2023 Action”) with the civil action entitled Sakon v. Linda S. Smith, et al, Docket No. HHD-CV20-6136800-S (hereinafter referred to as the “2020 Action”). Consolidation of the two cases would be unduly prejudicial because the 2020 Action was instituted nearly three years before the 2023 Action and parties have dispositive motions pending currently pending. Moreover, the plaintiff has instituted the 2023 Action against Linda S. Smith, PhD, LLC in an attempt to evade the Court’s dismissal of the same claims against Linda S. Smith, PhD, LLC in the 2020 Action. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff instituted a civil action entitled John Alan Sakon v. Linda S. Smith, et al., Docket No. HHD-CV20-6136500-S, pending in the Hartford Superior Court, against Dr. Smith her business, Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC by service of a writ, summons and Complaint dated MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103 860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459 103413417 December 22, 2020.1 Initially, the Complaint sounded in six counts and contains allegations pertaining to the timing and the content of the Custody Evaluation prepared by Dr. Smith in the Family Case. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant, Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. See 2020 Action, Entry No. 111.00. Subsequently, the Plaintiff attempted to cite the Defendant, Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC, back into the 2020 Action. See 2020 Action, Entry No. 114.00. The Court denied the Plaintiff’s attempts to bring the Defendant, Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC, back into the 2020 Action. See 2020 Action, Entry No. 114.86. The only remaining defendant in the 2020 Action is Linda S. Smith in her individual capacity. Defendant has clearly articulated their intent to file a motion for summary judgment in the 2020 Action. See 2020 Action, Entry No. 159.00. By way of complaint dated October 6, 2023, the Plaintiff initiated the 2023 Action against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. Since the Court denied the Plaintiff’s attempts to bring a claim against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC in the 2020 Action, the Plaintiff initiated a second action against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. The plaintiff’s Complaint is nearly identical to the operative complaint (Third Amended Complaint) in the Plaintiff’s 2020 Action against Linda S. Smith, and her businesses Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss in the 2023 Action, which is currently pending before the Court. See 2023 Action, Entry No. 103.00. This Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal based on the prior pending action 1 The Defendants request that this Court take judicial notice of the filings and proceedings in the 2020 Action. 2 MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103 860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459 103413417 doctrine, as this Court has already adjudicated that Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC not a proper party. While the Defendant does not dispute the assertion in the Motion to Consolidate that both cases contain identical allegations, this is far outweighed by the prejudice that the Defendant would suffer should the cases be consolidated. As such, the plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. II. LAW AND ARGUMENT 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 together, the judicial authority may, upon the motion of any party . . . order that the actions be consolidated for trial.” Consolidation is appropriate where it will expedite the court’s business without creating an injustice to the parties. Rode v. Adley Express Co., 130 Conn. 274, 277, 33 A.2d 329 (1943). “It has long been held that the decision to consolidate . . . the trial of different actions is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Alpha Crane Service v. Capitol Crane, 6 Conn. App. 60, 68, 504 A.2d 1376, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 808 (1986). A motion to consolidate should be denied where a party is able to demonstrate that prejudice would result should the motion be granted. See Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Baldino, 2002 WL 1952618, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 24, 2002). Consolidation of the 2020 Action with the 2023 would cause substantial hardship and prejudice to Defendants and would also severely hamper Defendants’ ability to defend themselves. Although both actions contain the same allegations against each defendant, this is not the sole 3 MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103 860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459 103413417 governing factor in deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate. The court must consider the prejudice to the opposing party when ruling on such a motion. Defendants will suffer prejudice in the first instance due to the fact that the claims against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC were dismissed in the 2020 Action, and the plaintiff now seeks to re- institute these claims less than three months before the trial date. The plaintiff has a significant head start on discovery and preparation of its case. Whereas the Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC has only had since the inception of the 2023 Action to begin constructing her defense. Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending before the Court. As such, Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC has not even had the opportunity to exchange discovery or depose the plaintiff and witnesses. Trial in the 2020 Action is scheduled for April 30, 2024, less than three months from today. No trial date has been assigned in the 2023 Action. Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC would be completely unprepared to go forward with trial on April 30, 2024. The trial date is less than a year from the return date of the 2023 Action and potentially prior to the Court’s decision on the Motion to Dismiss. Consolidation would force Defendant Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC into an unfairly short period of time in which to prepare their case, on top of preventing them from effectively conducting any discovery. Most significantly, however, the Plaintiff’s filing of the 2023 Action is his attempt to circumvent this Court’s ruling dismissing Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC from the 2020 Action. This Court has already made the determination in the 2020 Action that the Plaintiff cannot pursue these 4 MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103 860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459 103413417 exact claims against Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC. The Plaintiff then proceeded to file the 2023 Action naming Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC as a defendant, and now seeks to consolidate the two cases. The issue of whether Linda S. Smith, Ph.D, LLC is a proper defendant in the 2020 Action has already been adjudicated. This Court has already ruled that it is not, and by filing the 2023 Action and seeking to consolidate it with the 2020 Action, the Plaintiff fails to abide by this Court’s ruling. III. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny the Motion to Consolidate. DEFENDANT, LIND S. SMITH, PHD, LLC By: /s/ Megan H. DeFrank Megan H. DeFrank mdefrank@morrisonmahoney.com Cara D. Joyce cjoyce@morrisonmahoney.com Morrison Mahoney LLP One Constitution Plaza, 10th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-616-4441 Fax: 860-244-3800 5 MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103 860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459 103413417 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on February 23, 2024 to the following counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were electronically served: John Alan Sakon Pro se 28 Fenwick Drive Farmington, CT 06032 (johnsakon@yahoo.com) By: /s/ Megan H. DeFrank Megan H. DeFrank 6 MORRISON MAHONEY LLP • COUNSELLORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR, HARTFORD, CT 06103 860-616-4441 • JURIS NO. 404459 103413417