Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Carid
Because the plaintiff sought a prejudgment remedy on a contemplated domestic action to enforce an agreement, the rule did not apply from the 2004 Connecticut Supreme Court case of Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Company, that Connecticut's "prejudgment remedy statutes do not provide authority for the issuance of a prejudgment remedy to secure an action brought to enforce a potential foreign judgment." The Atlantic City Housing Authority terminated its construction contract with SRC Construction Corporation of Monroe, Inc. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, arranged for the completion of the construction, a senior living center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as required by the performance and payment bond Traveler's issued. Travelers filed an application for prejudgment remedy with an unsigned complaint against Jill Caridi and Michael Caridi, president of SRC, alleging, inter alia, sums paid to satisfy claims arising under the bond. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the application for $1,272,630.95, authorizing the attachment of certain real estate in Greenwich, Connecticut. The defendants appealed raising multiple claims. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. The trial court did not improperly prejudge the merits of the plaintiff's application before the defendants' presentation of the evidence as claimed, effectively precluding them from presenting their case. The hearing transcript made clear that the court addressed the merits of the application while resolving the motion to dismiss. The court explicitly informed defendants' counsel that it had not reached a final decision and invited the defendants to present evidence to change the court's initial impressions of the case formed under the motion to dismiss standard. The defendants declined this invitation. Having chosen not to present their case, the defendants could not be heard to claim that the court denied them the opportunity to do so. Further, the trial court properly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants contended that because an identical action was pending in New York, the trial court improperly failed to dismiss the application. However, the actions were not identical. SRC was a defendant in the New York action alone. Additionally, the plaintiff was not seeking merely to enforce a judgment yet to be rendered in New York. Because the plaintiff sought a prejudgment remedy on a contemplated domestic action to enforce the agreement, Cahaly was inapposite.