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
© 2024 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 AllADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Trending Stories
- 1Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
- 2Judge Orders Prosecution to Destroy Copies of Notes Found in Sean Combs' Prison Cell
- 3BIT Mining Bribery Scandal Highlights Trump-Biden Enforcement Gap
- 4AI Startup Founder Defrauded Investors of Millions, US Prosecutors Say
- 5Cyberattacks Slowing Down M&A Deals, Firm Report Finds
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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