Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

» Case 3:00-cv-00325-AVC Document 42 Filed 07/11/2005 Page10f2 ;
· 1
V fv§E,?¥tl 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i J i
` DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT gmjJpL;I ijgjign
SABER PETROLEUM : - . . _ _ L
Plaintiff, ¤ I y W
VS. ; Civil No. 3:00CV325 (AVC) I
GLENCORE INT'L, A.G., ; E
Defendant. : \
ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
This is an action for damages. The plaintiff, Saber
` Petroleum claims that the defendant, Glencore International
(“International”) engaged in tortious and unfair trade practices
by interfering with and preventing International's subsidiary,
Glencore Ltd., from paying commissions due Saber under a
petroleum sales contract. On November 3, 2000, the court granted
Glencore’s motion to stay this action pending arbitration in
London, England.
On September 11, 2003, the court issued an order requiring
the parties to submit a status report concerning the arbitration.
The court did not receive a response and, accordingly, on April
4, 2005, the court terminated the stay and dismissed the matter
without prejudice. On May 3, 2005, Saber submitted a letter to
the court stating that, in fact, on September 30, 2003, Saber had
faxed the court’s chambers a letter stating that the parties
planned to commence the arbitration in the end of 2003.
On May 18, 2005, the court ordered Saber to show cause why,
in light of Saber's failure to prosecute, this matter should be
I
1

;tt:irirt·r
* ”I""r I —»

N . Case 3:00-cv-00325-AVC Document 42 Filed 07/11/2005 Page 2 of 2 f
reopened as almost one year and a half has passed since the most
recent “planned commencement” of the arbitration, and over five
years have passed since this matter was first filed in this
court.
On June 9, 2005, Saber filed its response to the order to
show cause, explaining that it has not yet filed for arbitration {
because of the high costs involved in that undertaking, and
arguing that if the dismissal order were to remain unchanged, the
limitations period would not be tolled from the time of dismissal
to the time of refiling.
While sympathetic to Saber's position, the fact remains that
over five years have lapsed since the commencement of this
action. The court cannot allow this matter to remain pending
indefinitely, as that would defeat the very purpose of a statute
of limitations, that is, to protect defendants from protracted
and unknown potential liability. ggg e.g,, Beede v. Town of East
Haddam, 708 A.2d 231, 234 (Conn. App. 1998). Accordingly, the
court concludes that Saber has failed to show cause sufficient to
authorize a reopening of this matter. The court's order of
dismissal shall remain undisturbed.
It is so ordered this 11th day of July, 2005 at Hartford,
Connecticut. ( __ _ , A n, A JA
United States District Judge
2