Opinion
No. CV10 6013753S
March 24, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
DISCUSSION
Practice Book § 11-12 provides for a motion to reargue, which is also known as a motion for reconsideration, as follows.
"(a) A party who wishes to reargue a decision or order rendered by the court shall, within twenty days from the issuance of notice of the rendition of the decision or order, file a motion to reargue setting forth the decision or order which is the subject of the motion, the name of the judge who rendered it, and the specific grounds for reargument upon which the party relies.
"(b) The judge who rendered the decision or order may, upon motion of a party and a showing of good cause, extend the time for filing a motion to reargue. Such motion for extension must be filed before the expiration of the twenty day time period in subsection (a).
"(c) The motion to reargue shall be considered by the judge who rendered the decision or order. Such judge shall decide, without a hearing, whether the motion to reargue should be granted. If the judge grants the motion, the judge shall schedule the matter for hearing on the relief requested.
"(d) This section shall not apply to motions to reargue decisions which are final judgments for purposes of appeal. Such motions shall be filed pursuant to Section 11-11."
There is no direct appellate authority addressing whether a court may consider motions to reargue filed after the twenty day time period of § 11-12(a). Several Superior Court decisions have denied motions to reargue on the ground that the moving party filed the motion after the twenty day time period. E.g., O'Brien v. Davis, 49 Conn.Sup. 474, 481, 894 A.2d 1072 (2005) ("[t]he motion for reargument must be denied since it was not filed `within twenty days from the issuance of notice of the rendition of the decision or order'"); Samuel v. Worcester Ins. Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV 00 0802366 (October 3, 2006, Bryant, J.) ("[t]he motion [to reargue] is denied as it is untimely"). In Weinstein v. Weinstein, 275 Conn. 671, 698, 882 A.2d 53 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a dissolution judgment was not final until the dissolution court acted on the defendant's motion for reconsideration. In doing so, the Supreme Court noted: "A party only has twenty days from the date of judgment in which to file a motion for reconsideration. Practice Book § 11-12(a). After the twenty days has passed, no such motions can be filed and the judgment becomes final. If, however, a motion for reconsideration on which the ruling could alter the judgment is filed within the twenty day period, it is only logical that the finality of the judgment be suspended until the court has ruled on that motion." (Emphasis added.) Id., 700 n. 21.
Read as a whole, it is submitted that § 11-12 requires a court to deny a motion to reargue filed after the twenty-day time period. "[The court interprets] provisions of the Practice Book according to the same well settled principles of construction that [it applies] to the General Statutes . . . In determining the meaning of a statute, [it] must be considered as a whole, with a view toward reconciling its separate parts in order to render a reasonable overall interpretation . . . [The court presumes] that there is a purpose behind every sentence, clause, or phrase used in an act and that no part of a statute is superfluous." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Byars v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 101 Conn.App. 44, 48, 920 A.2d 352 (2007). The word "shall" in § 11-12(a) indicates that a party must file its motion to reargue within the twenty-day time period, if at all. If a party needs more than the twenty days after notice of the issuance of the court's decision, § 11-12(b) allows the party, within the twenty day time period, to ask the court to extend the time for filing a motion to reargue. A court considering a motion to reargue after the twenty day time period, without the moving party first asking for an extension of time within those twenty days, would render § 11-12(b) superfluous.
The court denies Crowley's motion for reconsideration. This court issued notice of its decision on January 21, 2011. According to § 11-12(a), Crowley had twenty days after January 21, 2011 in which to file a motion to reargue. The deadline was February 10, 2011. After the deadline, on February 18, 2011, Crowley filed his motion. Crowley's motion is untimely and, therefore, denied.