return date, she should have been allowed to plead to the amended complaint. The plaintiff asserts that the amendment responded to and corrected a procedural technicality only — a scrivener’s error. Although the plaintiff followed the court’s order and filed an amendment, it has maintained that, under the circumstances, no amendment was necessarily required. Relying on Merrill v. NRT New England, Inc., 126 Conn. App. 314, 12 A.3d 575, cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 925, 15 A.3d 629 (2011), the plaintiff further asserts that the defective return date implicated only personal jurisdiction. Our Supreme Court has stated that a defect in process implicates personal jurisdiction. See Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10, 31-33, 848 A.2d 418 (2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Bohonnon Law Firm, LLC v. Baxter,
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant within 120 days after filing the complaint holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal holding that noncompliance with general statutes  52102b which requires service of apportionment complaint within 120 days after return date of original complaint implicated personal jurisdiction holding that the statutory requirement that a defendant serve any apportionment complaint within 120 days of the return date of the original complaint is mandatory and implicates a courts personal jurisdiction holding original complaint was admission where it alleged an accident occurred on a different date than the amended complaint