Freeman v. Law Office of J. Xavier Pryor, LLC

── Freeman v. Law Office of J. Xavier Pryor, LLC ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 14, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Freeman v. Law Office of J. Xavier Pryor, LLC JUSTIN FREEMAN v. LAW OFFICE OF J. XAVIER PRYOR, LLC, ET AL. (AC 48163) Cradle, C. J., and Suarez and Clark, Js. Syllabus The defendants appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiff’s limited liability company, F Co., following the court’s denial of their pretrial motion to dismiss, which asserted that the plaintiff F lacked standing to bring a direct action against them to recover damages allegedly suffered by F Co. The court granted F’s posttrial motion to add F Co. as a party plain- tiff. The defendants claimed that the court improperly applied the narrow exception created by our Supreme Court in Saunders v. Briner (334 Conn. 135) to the general rule that a member of a limited liability company lacks standing to bring a direct action to recover for injuries allegedly suffered by the company. Held: The trial court improperly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, as F lacked standing in his individual capacity because his claim sought to recover for an injury to F Co., and F failed to demonstrate that allowing him to proceed with a direct action would not prejudice F Co.’s creditors, thus rendering the exception in Saunders inapplicable. The trial court’s order granting F’s posttrial motion to amend the complaint to add F Co. as a plaintiff did not cure F’s lack of standing, as the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the entire trial, and there was nothing in the record to indicate that the court made the findings necessary to permit F to add F Co. as a proper party pursuant to statute (§ 52-109) because F did not claim, and the court did not find, that the action was commenced in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff through mistake as is required under § 52-109. Argued October 20, 2025—officially released April 14, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Sheridan, J., denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss; thereafter the case was tried to the court, Klau, J.; subsequently, the court, Klau, J., granted the plain- tiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add Law Office of Justin C. Freeman, LLC, as an additional plaintiff; thereafter, the court, Klau, J., rendered judgment in part for the plaintiff Law Office of Justin C. Freeman,  Freeman v. Law Office of J.