Bradford v. Brennan, No. 079581 (Jul. 31, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Bradford v. Brennan, No. 079581 (Jul. 31, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 6180

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided July 31, 1991·No. No. 079581·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (#182) After hearing held on motion to strike of defendants, Francis R. Brennan, Board of Education, and City of Waterbury, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The defense of governmental immunity is properly raised by special defense; Practice Book, 164; Gauvin v. New Haven,187 Conn. 180, 184 (1982); and accordingly is not a proper subject of a motion to strike.

2. The revised complaint, dated October 26, 1990, contains no allegations against the defendant — Board of Education. Such defendant is misjoined and should be dropped. Cf. White v. Portland, 67 Conn. 272, 277 (1896). A motion to strike is the exclusive remedy to raise an issue of misjoinder. Practice Book, 198.

3. The revised complaint, dated October 26, 1990, contains several allegations of duties owed to the plaintiffs by the defendant-Brennan. Whether the duties are discretionary or CT Page 6181 ministerial is a question of fact; Couture v. Board of Education,6 Conn. App. 309, 311 (1986); not properly the subject of a motion to strike. Middletown Trust Co. v. Middletown National Bank,110 Conn. 13, 21 (1929).

The motion to strike, as raised by the defendant-Board of Education, is granted. The motion is otherwise denied.

GAFFNEY, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (#182) After hearing held on motion to strike of defendants, Francis R. Brennan, Board of Education, and City of Waterbury, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The defense of governmental immunity is properly raised by special defense; Practice Book, 164; Gauvin v. New Haven,187 Conn. 180, 184 (1982); and accordingly is not a proper subject of a motion to strike.

2. The revised complaint, dated October 26, 1990, contains no allegations against the defendant — Board of Education. Such defendant is misjoined and should be dropped. Cf. White v. Portland, 67 Conn. 272, 277 (1896). A motion to strike is the exclusive remedy to raise an issue of misjoinder. Practice Book, 198.

3. The revised complaint, dated October 26, 1990, contains several allegations of duties owed to the plaintiffs by the defendant-Brennan. Whether the duties are discretionary or CT Page 6181 ministerial is a question of fact; Couture v. Board of Education,6 Conn. App. 309, 311 (1986); not properly the subject of a motion to strike. Middletown Trust Co. v. Middletown National Bank,110 Conn. 13, 21 (1929).

The motion to strike, as raised by the defendant-Board of Education, is granted. The motion is otherwise denied.

GAFFNEY, J.

Bradford v. Brennan, No. 079581 (Jul. 31, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 6180 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 6180 (Bradford v. Brennan, No. 079581 (Jul. 31, 1991)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related