throbber
DOCKET NO. WWM—CV-19-6016996—S : SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JOLLY JOHN’S TRUCK AND
`
`: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM
`
`EQUIPMENT, LLC
`
`VS.
`
`: AT PUTNAM
`
`RICHARD CHENEY ,
`
`: MARCH 22, 2021
`
`REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT
`
`The plaintiff in the above—captioned matter pursuant to the provisions of Section 10—60
`
`of the Superior Court Civil Rules hereby requests permission to amend its Complaint in
`
`accordance with the attached Second Amended Complaint.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`mrouillmd
`
`
`" '
`'
`
`y:
`
`St. Onge & Brouillard
`Its Attorneys
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of March, 2020 a copy of the foregoing was sent
`
`via e-mail and/or facsimile, and by regular mail to the following counsel of record and self-
`
`represented parties:
`
`Charles K. Norris, Esq.
`Chinigo Leone & Maruzo LLP
`141 Broadway
`PO Box 510
`
`Norwich, CT 06360
`(Facsmile: 860—887—1744)
`
`Mr. Richard Cheney (pro se)
`42 Oak Drive
`
`Mansfield, CT 06250
`(Email: richel 859@gmail.com)
`
` Mark R. Brouillard
`
`Commissioner 0fthe Superior Court
`
`

`

`DOCKET NOJWWM—CV—19-6016996—S : SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JOLLY JOHN’S TRUCK AND
`
`: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM
`
`EQUIPMENT, LLC
`
`VS.
`
`: AT PUTNAM
`
`RICHARD CHENEY
`
`: MARCH 22, 2021
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`FIRST COUNT: (Jolly John’s Truck and Equipment, LLC v. Richard Cheney)
`
`1.
`
`The plaintiff, Jolly John’s Truck & Equipment is a Connecticut limited liability
`
`company with a principal place of business at 3 80 North Main Street in Moosup,
`
`Connecticut.
`
`The defendant, Richard Cheney, is an individual with an address of 42 Oak Drive
`
`in Mansfield Center, Connecticut.
`
`In January, 2018, the defendant, Richard Cheney, requested of the plaintiff that he
`
`be allowed the use of a certain 1973 John Deere pay loader in order to evaluate
`
`whether he wished to purchase the same. It was agreed by the plaintiff and the
`
`defendant, Richard Cheney, that if he in fact purchased the pay loader, that he
`
`would not be charged any rental fee. It was further agreed that if he did not
`
`purchase the pay loader, then he would be charged the reasonable rental value of
`
`the pay loader.
`
`*
`
`In January 2018, through July 2018, the defendant, Richard Cheney, had the use of
`
`

`

`the pay loader and the plaintiff requested that the pay loader be returned. The
`
`defendant then made arrangements for the return of the pay loader.
`
`In accordance with the agreement reached by the parties, wherein the defendant
`
`would be responsible to pay for the reasonable rental value of the 1973 John Deere
`
`pay loader in the event that it was not purchased, the sum of Six Thousand Dollars
`
`and 00/100 ($6,000.00) plus tax of Three Hundred Eighty—One Dollars & 00/100
`
`($381.00) for a total due of Six Thousand Three Hundred Eight—One Dollars &
`
`00/ 100 ($6,381.00) A copy of the invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
`
`6. Despite demand, the defendant has failed, neglected, or refused to pay the same.
`
`SECOND COUNT: (Jolly John’s Truck and Equipment v. Mattern Construction, Inc.)
`
`1.
`
`The plaintiff, Jolly John’s Truck & Equipment is a Connecticut limited liability
`
`company with a principal place of business at 380 North Main Street in Moosup,
`
`Connecticut.
`
`The defendant, Mattern Construction, Inc. is Connecticut corporation with a place
`
`of business at 26M Bushnell Hollow Road, Baltic, Connecticut, 06330.
`
`In January, 2018, through July, 2018, Richard Cheney, as agent for and acting on
`
`behalf of the defendant, Mattern Construction, Inc., agreed to purchase and/or to
`
`rent a 1973 John Deere pay loader from the plaintiff.
`
`The pay loader was not purchased, and the defendant is liable for the reasonable
`
`rental value of the 1973 John Deere pay loader in the amount of Six Thousand
`
`

`

`00/100 ($381.00) for a total amount due of Six Thousand Three Hundred Eight-
`
`One Dollars & 00/100 ($6,381.00).
`
`5. The defendant has failed, neglected, or refused to pay the same.
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Monetary damages;
`
`Interest;
`
`Attorney’s fees;
`
`Court costs; and
`
`Any other legal or equitable relief to which the plaintiff may be entitled.
`
`This matter is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`Dated at Woodstock, Connecticut this 22nd day of March, 2021.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`By' 2 I
`Mark R. Brouillard
`
`St. Onge & Brouillard
`Its Attorneys
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of March, 2020 a copy of the foregoing was sent
`
`Via e—mail and/or facsimile and regular mail, to the following counsel of record and self—
`
`represented party:
`
`Charles K. Norris, Esq.
`Chinigo Leone & Maruzo LLP
`141 Broadway
`PO Box 510
`
`Norwich, CT 06360
`(Facsmile: 860-887—1744)
`
`Mr. Richard Cheney (pro se)
`42 Oak Drive
`
`Mansfield, CT 06250
`(Email: 1-iche1859gcggmail.com)
`
` fl; 7)
`
`rouillard
`
`Mark R.
`
`Commissioner oflhe Superior Co (rt
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket