Motion for Change of Venue in Connecticut

What Is a Motion for Change of Venue?

Background

“While jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to act, venue is the place where the power to adjudicate is to be exercised, that is, the place where the suit may or should be heard. The requirements of jurisdiction are grounded in the state's inherent judicial power, while the requirements of venue are grounded in convenience to litigants.” (Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London (2007) 282 Conn. 791, 814-15 citing Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction (2005) 274 Conn. 507, 522.)

“Venue does not involve a jurisdictional question but rather a procedural one, and thus is a matter that goes to process rather than substantive rights. Moreover, although a court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, improper venue may be waived and may be changed by the consent of the parties.” (Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London (2007) 282 Conn. 791, 814-15 citing Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction (2005) 274 Conn. 507, 522.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“[S]tatutory venue provisions, which are merely for the convenience of the parties, should be presumed not to be jurisdictional in the absence of any clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary.” (Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London (2007) 282 Conn. 791, 819 citing Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 274 Conn. 522; see also Fedus v. Planning & Zoning Commission (2006) 278 Conn. 751, 778-79 [“in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged”] [internal quotation marks omitted].) There simply is no evidence that, in enacting the venue provision of § 4-183, the legislature intended to abrogate the common understanding that venue is not jurisdictional. (Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London (2007) 282 Conn. 791, 819 citing Rumbin v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. (2000) 254 Conn. 259, 265 [“[i]n determining whether ... a statute abrogates or modifies a common law rule the construction must be strict, and the operation of a statute in derogation of the common law is to be limited to matters clearly brought within its scope”] [internal citations omitted].)

Transfer of Venue

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 51-347a(a), a Court has the discretion to transfer civil cases upon motion to another judicial district “if in the opinion of such judge the cause of justice requires it.” (See, Connecticut General Statutes § 51-347a(a).)

The general considerations for transferring a civil case are the same as those for transfer of a criminal case. (See Adams v. Adams (2005) 93 Conn. App. 423, 426.)

A Court must grant a Defendant's request for a change of venue if they can demonstrate that “extraordinary local prejudice will prevent a fair trial.” (Skilling v. U.S. (2010) 561 U.S. 358, 378.)

Connecticut courts have adopted the rationale of Skilling. (See State v. Komisarjevsky, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 551 [Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2011].)

Four-Factor Test for Change of Venue

A request for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity is subject to a four-factor test:

“the size and characteristics of the community in which the crime occurred”;
whether the coverage contained a “confession or other blatantly prejudicial information of the type readers or viewers could not reasonably be expected to shut from sight”;
the lapse of time between the events and the trial; and
“the actual verdict of the jury.”

(Skilling, supra at 382-383; see also Coombs v. Boys & Girls Club of Great Waterbury, Inc., 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 128, at *6 [Conn. Super. Jan. 16, 2013].)

The Court’s Decision

Impact of Publicity

In examining the negative impact of pretrial publicity, a Court must determine whether “this publicity and more is so prejudicial that it will prevent a fair trial.” (See id.at *7.)

In determining whether press coverage of a case is inherently prejudicial, the Connecticut Supreme Court has focused upon whether “the media coverage involved straight news stories rather than invidious articles which would tend to arouse ill will and vindictiveness.” (State v. Pelletier (1989) 209 Conn. 564, 570.) The Court should also examine whether the pretrial publicity was “long-lasting or pervasive.” (Coombs, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 128, at *10.)

Effects of Venue Transfer

“Practice Book § 215 provides the mechanics for transferring a case from one judicial district to another. The relevant portion of § 215 provides that ‘[u]pon the transfer of any action . . . such cause shall thereafter be proceeded with in the same manner as if it were originally brought to [the transferee] court.’ When a case is transferred from one judicial district to another, it goes with all the baggage that it collected at the first location. Transfer does not eliminate, terminate, vitiate or invalidate prior orders entered in the case.” (Cassella v. Kleffke (1995) 38 Conn. App. 340, 346.)

Documents for Motion for Change of Venue in Connecticut

Sort By

TADDEO, JUDITH Et Al v. TILCON, INC. Et Al document preview

ORDER Venue Order RESULT: Order 5/6/2024 HON SUSAN COBB

1 page

ORDER 431193 DOCKET NO: HHDCV246180353S SUPERIOR COURT TADDEO, JUDITH Et Al JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD V. AT HARTFORD TILCON, INC. Et Al 5/6/2024 …