(a) If an application for a prejudgment remedy is granted but the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return to court the writ, summons and complaint for which the prejudgment remedy was allowed, the court shall dismiss the prejudgment remedy.
(b) If an application for a prejudgment remedy is denied and the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return to court the writ of summons and complaint for which the prejudgment remedy was requested, or if a date for a hearing upon a prejudgment remedy is scheduled by the clerk and such hearing is not commenced within thirty days thereof, except as provided in section 52-278e, the court shall order the application to be considered as having been withdrawn.
(c) An application for a prejudgment remedy or a prejudgment remedy which is granted but not served may be withdrawn in the same manner as a civil cause of action.
(P.A. 76-21, S. 1–3; P.A. 78-36; P.A. 91-315, S. 3, 5.)
History: P.A. 78-36 allowed application to be considered as withdrawn if hearing date is scheduled and hearing is not commenced within 90 days of that date in Subsec. (b); P.A. 91-315 amended Subsecs. (a) and (b) to reduce the time period from 90 days to 30 days and to make the dismissal by the court in Subsec. (a) and the court's action in ordering the withdrawal of the application in Subsec. (b) mandatory rather than discretionary.
Cited. 186 C. 295; 188 C. 69.
Cited. 34 CA 303. Nothing in section implicates jurisdiction of the court to continue to hear a civil matter in which plaintiff has been granted a prejudgment remedy but failed to comply with Subsec. (a); rather the mandate in Subsec. (a) is best viewed as a sanction to prevent plaintiff from unduly encumbering assets of defendant by delaying initiation of the civil action in which the parties' dispute can be fully and fairly litigated. 156 CA 17. When plaintiff failed to serve defendant and return plaintiff's civil action to court within thirty days after the denial of his application for a prejudgment remedy, the only action required of the court was to consider the application, not the civil action, withdrawn. 163 CA 663. Requirements set forth in section are inapplicable to proceedings pursuant to Sec. 52-422. 204 CA 471.
Cited. 38 CS 98.
Notes of Decisions
Baldwin Piano & Organ Co. v. Blake, 441 A.2d 183 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 17× “" *297 The defendants moved to dismiss the prejudgment remedy under General Statutes § 52-278j, [1] in that more than ninety days from the issuance of the replevy order had passed without service of the writ, summons, and complaint.”
Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Est., Inc., 628 A.2d 1303 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 3× “General Statutes § 52-278j provides: “(a) If an application for a prejudgment remedy is granted but the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return to court the writ, summons and complaint for which the prejudgment remedy was allowed, the court shall dismiss…”
Bernhard-Thomas Bldg. Sys., LLC v. Dunican, 944 A.2d 329 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “The language of General Statutes § 52-278j (a) also suggests that an application for a prejudgment remedy is not a civil action, providing as follows: “If an application for a prejudgment remedy is granted but the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return…”
Lemma v. York & Chapel, Corp., 204 Conn. App. 471 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 7× “On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the case was commenced with the application for a prejudgment remedy, and the plaintiff there- after failed to serve and return the summons and complaint to court as…”
Sassone v. Lepore, 629 A.2d 357 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 2× “If the court, upon consideration of the facts before it, finds that the plaintiff has shown probable cause to sustain the validity of his claim, then the prejudgment remedy applied for shall be granted as requested or as modified by the court unless the prejudgment remedy or…”
Cahaly v. Benistar Prop. Exch. Trust Co., 842 A.2d 1113 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 3× “See also General Statutes § 52-278j (a) (“[i]f an application for a prejudgment remedy is granted but the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return to court the writ, summons and complaint for which the prejudgment remedy was allowed, the court shall…”
Doe v. Rapoport, 833 A.2d 926 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 3× “” General Statutes § 52-278j (b) provides that “[i]f an application for a prejudgment remedy is denied and the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return to court the writ of summons and complaint for which the prejudgment remedy was requested, or if a date…”
Megos v. Ranta, 180 A.3d 645 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiff, however, thereafter failed to serve the writ, summons, and complaint, and return the same to the Superior Court within thirty days in accordance with General Statutes § 52-278j (a). 2 The court, therefore, dismissed the matter on June 10, 2014.”
Thorn Americas, Inc. v. Torres, 641 A.2d 386 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 6× “*305 After the appeal was filed, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the prejudgment remedy in the trial court pursuant to General Statutes § 52-278j (a) 1 on the ground that the writ, summons and complaint were not properly served and returned to court within thirty days of…”
Bernhard-Thomas Bldg. Sys., LLC v. Dunican, 918 A.2d 889 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 3× “” General Statutes § 52-278j (a). This indicates that the failure to commence the civil action is a process separate and distinct from the initial step of obtaining a prejudgment remedy.”
William M. Raveis & Assocs., Inc. v. Kimball, 441 A.2d 200 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 2× “If the court, -upon consideration of the facts *331 before it, finds that the plaintiff has shown probable cause to sustain the validity of his claim, then the prejudgment remedy applied for shall be granted as requested or as modified by the court unless the prejudgment remedy…”
Papic v. Burke, 965 A.2d 633 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 2× “In the present case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s actions in filing the separate enforcement action were “in abrogation of the prejudgment remedy statute, General Statutes § 52-278j.” The plaintiff does not, however, provide any legal basis or *222 analysis from…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.