Amati v. Nallainathan, No. 298653 (Jan. 10, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Amati v. Nallainathan, No. 298653 (Jan. 10, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 29, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 425

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 10, 1997

DocketNo. 298653

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 29 (Amati v. Nallainathan, No. 298653 (Jan. 10, 1997)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amati v. Nallainathan, No. 298653 (Jan. 10, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 29, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 425 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The third party defendant moved to strike the third party plaintiff's complaint. The court (Ballen, J.) granted the motion. The third party plaintiff thereupon filed a substitute complaint. The third party defendant now has filed a motion for order of compliance, claiming that the substitute compliant does not comport with Judge Ballen's memorandum of decision granting the motion to strike.¹

When a motion to strike a complaint is granted, the prevailing party may (1) move for judgment pursuant to Practice Book § 157 if a new complaint is not timely filed, or (2) request that the new pleading be deleted and that judgment enter if the allegations therein are the same, in substance, as the allegations which have been stricken. Royce v. Westport,183 Conn. 177 (1981). Here, the third party plaintiff has filed a substitute complaint and there is no claim that the allegations of that complaint are substantially the same as those which were stricken. There is no authorization in the Practice Book for a motion for an order of compliance where the new pleading does not comport with dicta in the court's memorandum of decision, and pleading "`[i]nnovations should not be put into practice ex parte by counsel.' Vigue v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.,147 Conn. 305, 306, 160 A.2d 484 (1960)." Brookfield v. BoulderSpring Water Co., 196 Conn. 355, 358, 493 A.2d 862 (1985).

The motion for order of compliance (# 175.00) is denied. CT Page 30

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The third party defendant moved to strike the third party plaintiff's complaint. The court (Ballen, J.) granted the motion. The third party plaintiff thereupon filed a substitute complaint. The third party defendant now has filed a motion for order of compliance, claiming that the substitute compliant does not comport with Judge Ballen's memorandum of decision granting the motion to strike.¹

When a motion to strike a complaint is granted, the prevailing party may (1) move for judgment pursuant to Practice Book § 157 if a new complaint is not timely filed, or (2) request that the new pleading be deleted and that judgment enter if the allegations therein are the same, in substance, as the allegations which have been stricken. Royce v. Westport,183 Conn. 177 (1981). Here, the third party plaintiff has filed a substitute complaint and there is no claim that the allegations of that complaint are substantially the same as those which were stricken. There is no authorization in the Practice Book for a motion for an order of compliance where the new pleading does not comport with dicta in the court's memorandum of decision, and pleading "`[i]nnovations should not be put into practice ex parte by counsel.' Vigue v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.,147 Conn. 305, 306, 160 A.2d 484 (1960)." Brookfield v. BoulderSpring Water Co., 196 Conn. 355, 358, 493 A.2d 862 (1985).

The motion for order of compliance (# 175.00) is denied. CT Page 30

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 29, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amati-v-nallainathan-no-298653-jan-10-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack