Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

ECR 2 LLC v. Thompson (2025)

Citation
ECR 2 LLC v. Thompson (2025)
Parent Document
ECR 2 LLC v. Thompson (2025)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2025-05-13

Full Text

2,540 chars
action. So, I am going to deny the motion for summary
         judgment.’’1
            After the court denied the defendant’s motion for
         summary judgment, he filed a motion to ‘‘stay further
         proceedings in this action until three days from when
         the plaintiff has fully and fairly responded to the defen-
         dant’s interrogatories and requests for production,
         which were mailed and emailed to the plaintiff on May
         1, 2024, as per the notice of discovery concomitantly
         filed with this court.’’2 The defendant argued that, ‘‘[i]n
         support of the motion, the defendant represents that
         the plaintiff’s objection to the defendant’s motion for
         summary judgment alleges that there is at least one
         issue of material fact in dispute in the instant case.
         . . . Given that all [of] the facts stated in the plaintiff’s
         objection are in accord with the facts stated in the
         defendant’s motion for summary judgment . . . one
         can only conclude that there are facts outside of the
         record upon which the plaintiff will rely.’’ (Citations
         omitted.)
            The court denied the motion for a continuance from
         the bench. The court explained: ‘‘Discovery is appro-
         priate, but I think the issues in this case are relatively
         narrow, and I think all of the information that you need
         you can get during the trial today.’’ In response, counsel
         for the defendant stated: ‘‘Your Honor, I just do want
         to put my objection to the denial on the record. This
         is a due process issue. In summary process, obviously,
         a person’s housing is at stake. Due process is very
             1
              The court issued the following written order as well: ‘‘After hearing the
         argument of counsel, the court finds that there remain questions of material
         fact, specifically, whether the nonpayment allegation was cured. Addition-
         ally, the court must make factual findings to determine any potential equita-
         ble relief sought.’’
            2
              Although the defendant’s motion was titled a motion to stay, and he
         purported to seek a stay of the proceedings, he actually sought a continuance
         of the trial date. We therefore refer to the defendant’s motion as a motion
         for a continuance.
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 7