United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING BOAHEN'S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS [DKT. NOS. 21 AND 22] AND GRANTING
BOAHEN AND ENVIRO'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
[DKT. NO. 25]
Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge
motions now before the Court arise out of the consolidation
of three individual cases resulting from the same factual
background. On December 13, 2017, Kwame Boahen
(“Boahen”), a Connecticut resident, filed suit
against Philip Trifiletti (“Trifiletti”) and
Trifiletti's employer, UPS Ground Freight, Inc.
(“UPS Freight”), in Connecticut Superior Court
for negligence. Trifiletti and UPS Freight removed the case
to Federal Court in the District of Connecticut on January
30, 2018. [No. 18-cv-00171-VLB, hereinafter “Case
171”]. Trifiletti and UPS Freight both filed
counterclaims on February 6, 2018, which Boahen now moves to
a New Jersey resident, brought the second case on January 10,
2018, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for negligence
against Boahen and Boahen's employer Enviro Express, Inc.
(“Enviro”). [No. 18-cv-00713-VLB, hereinafter
“Case 713”]. The Court transferred the case to
the District of Connecticut on April 24, 2018. [18-cv-713,
Dkt. No. 4].
January 12, 2018, UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.,
(“UPS Supply”) and UPS Freight (collectively
“UPS”), LM Insurance Corporation
(“LM”), as subrogee of UPS, and Helmsman
Management Services LLC (“Helmsman”), as
Third-Party Administrator for UPS (collectively the
“UPS Parties”) filed a complaint against Boahen
and Enviro in the District of Connecticut for negligence.
[No. 18-cv-00075-VLB, hereinafter “Case 75”].
Boahen and Enviro now move to dismiss.
Court consolidated the cases on April 6, 2018.
is a resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut and at all times
herein was employed by Enviro. [Dkt. No. 1 (Boahen Compl.)
¶¶ 2, 3]. Trifiletti is a resident of Roebling, New
Jersey and at all times herein was employed by UPS Freight.
[Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4]. On January 12, 2016, Boahen was
driving a tractor-trailer owned by Enviro northbound on
Interstate 95 (“I-95”). [Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶
3, 5]. While driving, Boahen's truck became disabled.
[Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 5]. Boahen pulled into the right shoulder.
[Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 5]. On the same day, Trifiletti was
driving a truck with an attached trailer registered to UPS
Freight northbound on I-95 in Connecticut. [Dkt. No. 11
(Trifiletti Countercl.) ¶¶ 2, 31]. At around 7:14
a.m., Trifiletti and Boahen were involved in a motor vehicle
accident (“the Accident”). [Dkt. No. 11 ¶
filed suit in Case 171 on December 13, 2017. Trifiletti and
UPS Freight both filed counterclaims on February 6, 2018,
which Boahen now moves to dismiss.
January 12, 2018, the UPS Parties filed a complaint in Case
75 against Boahen and Enviro. Process was delivered to the
marshal on January 16, 2018 and the marshal served Defendants
on January 23 and 24, 2018. Boahen and Enviro now move to
Motions to Dismiss
Motions to Dismiss UPS Freight's and Trifiletti's
February 6, 2018, UPS Freight and Trifiletti answered
Boahen's Complaint in Case 171 and each filed a
counterclaim (the “Counterclaims”) against Boahen
for negligence. [Dkt. No. 10 (UPS Freight Answer Countercl.)
at 11; Dkt. No. 11 (Trifiletti Answer Countercl.) at 11]. The
Counterclaims brought by UPS Freight and Trifiletti are
identical. Boahen moved to dismiss the counterclaims in two
separate motions filed on April 4, 2018 for failure to comply
with the statute of limitations. [Dkt. Nos. 20, 22 (Mots.
Dismiss)]. Boahen's Motions to Dismiss the Counterclaims
and supporting briefing are substantively identical and
Trifiletti's and UPS Freight's opposition briefs are
identical. [Dkt. Nos. 20-23; 34 and 35 respectively].
Therefore, the two motions are addressed together in the
following analysis and the decision applies to both.
moves to dismiss both Counterclaims on the grounds that they
are untimely due to an expired statute of limitations. [Dkt.
No. 21 (Mot. Dismiss UPS Countercl. Mem.) at 1; Dkt. No. 23
(Mot. Dismiss Trifiletti Countercl. Mem.) at 1]. UPS Freight
and Trifiletti assert that counterclaims can be brought at
any time before the formal close of pleadings under the
relevant statute of limitations. [Dkt. No. 34 at 1; Dkt. No.
35 at 1]. Furthermore, UPS Freight and Trifiletti argue that
Boahen's Motions to Dismiss the Counterclaims are
untimely because they were brought more than twenty-one days
after the Counterclaims were asserted. [Dkt. No. 34 at 5;
Dkt. No. 35 at 5].
applicable statute of limitations allows a suit to be
commenced within two years of the date of injury but for an
exception for counterclaims. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584.
The statute provides “no action to recover damages for
injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused
by negligence, or by reckless or wanton misconduct . . .
shall be brought but within two years from the date when the
injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have been discovered . . . except
that a counterclaim may be interposed in any such action any
time before the pleadings in such action are finally
closed.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584 (emphasis
added). The statute is very clear that a
counterclaim is not subject to the two-year statute
of limitations and can be brought at any time before the
pleadings in an action are closed. See Mulcahy v.
Mossa, 872 A.2d 453, 459 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)
(“Section 52-584 expressly provides that a counterclaim
may be filed at any time prior to the close of pleadings,
irrespective of ...