The Time Has Come to Abolish Return Days
Whatever purpose may have been served by return days in earlier times, they are not adapted to today's times. They should be given a decent burial.
March 15, 2019 at 01:30 PM
3 minute read
Recently we issued an opinion that the e-filing regime in the Superior Court was not adapted to the federal deadline for removing cases to the District Court of 30 days from notice to the defendant of the initial complaint. The problem is that the plaintiff serves the defendant with the complaint and thereafter e-files the complaint with the Superior Court at least six days before the return day set by the plaintiff, a day that may be more than 30 days after service of the complaint on the defendant.
Currently the defendant can file nothing until the plaintiff e-files the complaint. So if the plaintiff files the complaint 31 days after service on the defendant, the federal deadline has passed before the defendant can file the removal notice. Catch-22!
Our band-aid solution was to permit the defendant to paper-file the removal document. But our permanent solution is to abolish return days.
Return days are a relic of history. They used to coordinate with the four English Terms of Court set around various Christian holidays every year. For example, Michaelmas Term started the first Tuesday after Sept. 29, which was when the feast of the Archangel Michael was celebrated. Most business was expected to be concluded by the end of the term. For that reason return days originally were the first day of the term, which was always a Tuesday. It was important for the defendant to be available on the return day so that court proceedings could go forward promptly thereafter. To accomplish that goal, in early times the sheriff would arrest the defendant on the civil process and hold him until the return day unless bond was posted. While most of this was changed in Connecticut statutes over the years, quarterly Terms of Court remained here until the 1970s, and return days remain here today.
The only useful purposes return days serve today are promoting the possibility of settling a case after service and before filing in court if the defendant wants to avoid the publicity attendant on the court filing, and starting the clock for the filing of pleadings by the defendant. But those useful purposes are overwhelmed by the traps the ancient return day rules set. They are equal-opportunity traps. They are traps for plaintiffs, who may select an improper date or day of the week or may fail to return the process to court on time; these traps will disappear if the case starts with the filing in court. They are traps for defendants, especially pro ses, who may have no idea what return days are or when defendants are supposed to do something.
Sometimes a pro se defendant shows up in court on the return day expecting something to happen. When a defendant tries to check online what is going on with the case in the judicial system, a complete blank will be drawn until the plaintiff sees fit to e-file the complaint. And if—heaven forbid—the defendant wants the court to take some immediate action, the clerk will respond, “I'm sorry, but we have no case.”
Whatever purpose may have been served by return days in earlier times, they are not adapted to today's times. They should be given a decent burial.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/391/2024/10/Paul-Corey-767x633.jpg)
ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
![Winning a Custody Appeal Based on Abuse of Discretion Isn't Easy Winning a Custody Appeal Based on Abuse of Discretion Isn't Easy](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/391/2023/01/Elisa-Reiter-and-Daniel-Pollack-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250