Mazariegos v. Clark, No. Cv 89 257033 (Jul. 6, 1992)
Opinion of the Court
The defendant also points out the motion to reopen refers only to plaintiff's compliance with disclosure/production on October 9, 1990, but does not set forth any claim that she was prevented for "reasonable cause" from compliance by July 30, 1990, as ordered by the court on July 9, 1990. See Osborne v. Osborne,
Moreover, plaintiff's motion was not verified by oath as required by General Statutes
In any event, this court is without jurisdiction over the plaintiff's action because of the four months rule, and therefore defendant's objection to the motion to reopen judgment is sustained.
So Ordered. CT Page 6443
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 6th day of July, 1992.
William B. Lewis, Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.