STUTZ v. SOUTHPORT ATHLETIC CLUB, INC., No. CV 01 0388156 (Apr. 1, 2004)

DOHERTY, JUDGE.

This is a shareholder derivative suit that was referred to an arbitrator chosen by the parties for resolution of the substantive issues raised by the pleadings as well as a determination of fees, if warranted. The arbitrator's decision rendered in two parts, Phase I and Phase II.

The substantive issues in the suit were resolved by the arbitrator in Phase I of his ruling, dated February 5, 2003.

The fees were addressed in Phase II of the proceedings in a decision dated June 13, 2003.

By way of Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Ruling — Phase II, dated July 10, 2003, the plaintiff challenged the arbitrator's ruling with respect to Phase II of the proceedings. The plaintiff did not challenge the Phase II decision.

By way of Motion To Confirm Arbitration Award dated July 17, 2003, the defendant sought confirmation of both Phase I and Phase II of the arbitrator's decision. The defendant pointed out in its accompanying memorandum that there was no dispute as to Phase I.

On February 24, 2004, a memorandum of decision was issued in the above-captioned matter wherein the court denied the defendant's motion to confirm the arbitrator's award.

As part of that memorandum the court found, "The parties have agreed on the record that they do not take issue with Phase I of the arbitrator's decision. It is not part of the motions before the court."

Having so found, the court concluded its memorandum by decreeing "The defendant's motion to confirm the arbitrator's CT Page 5405 award."

In a post-judgment motion to the court, the parties filed a joint motion to reargue, dated March 12, 2004, in which concern was expressed that the court's decree could be read so as to have "denied [the defendant's] motion to confirm in its entirety, even though the parties agreed that the Phase I decision should be confirmed."

In order to address the concerns of the parties as to the true intent of the court's ruling, the memorandum of decision dated February 24, 2004, is hereby corrected and more clearly articulated as follows: The motion to confirm filed by the defendant, Southport Athletic Club, Inc. is granted in part with respect to Phase I, and denied in part with respect to Phase II, consistent with the court's decision of February 24, 2004.

By the Court,

Joseph W. Doherty, Judge CT Page 5406