D.A.N. Joint Venture II v. Tunxis Mgt., No. Cv 97-0567959-S (Jul. 8, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

D.A.N. Joint Venture II v. Tunxis Mgt., No. Cv 97-0567959-S (Jul. 8, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8318

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided July 8, 1998·No. No. CV 97-0567959-S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendants move to strike the first, second, and third CT Page 8319 counts of the plaintiff's complaint for "failure to state a legal cause of action." The plaintiff objects to the defendant's motion on the ground that the motion to strike does not satisfy the requirements of Practice Book § 154, now Practice Book § (1998 Rev.) § 10-41, which requires that the motion "set forth each such claim of insufficiency and . . . distinctly specify the reason or reasons for each claimed insufficiency."Bouchard v. People's Bank, 219 Conn. 465, 468 n. 4, 594 A.2d 1 (1991).

The defendant failed to specify the reason for the insufficiency in the motion to strike, and the plaintiff has objected to the defendant's argument. Therefore, the motion is fatally defective. See Chestnut v. Kent, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 346653 (April 17, 1998, Skolnick, J.) (22 Conn. L. Rptr. 29, 32 n. 2).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike is denied.

Stengel, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendants move to strike the first, second, and third CT Page 8319 counts of the plaintiff's complaint for "failure to state a legal cause of action." The plaintiff objects to the defendant's motion on the ground that the motion to strike does not satisfy the requirements of Practice Book § 154, now Practice Book § (1998 Rev.) § 10-41, which requires that the motion "set forth each such claim of insufficiency and . . . distinctly specify the reason or reasons for each claimed insufficiency."Bouchard v. People's Bank, 219 Conn. 465, 468 n. 4, 594 A.2d 1 (1991).

The defendant failed to specify the reason for the insufficiency in the motion to strike, and the plaintiff has objected to the defendant's argument. Therefore, the motion is fatally defective. See Chestnut v. Kent, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 346653 (April 17, 1998, Skolnick, J.) (22 Conn. L. Rptr. 29, 32 n. 2).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike is denied.

Stengel, J.

D.A.N. Joint Venture II v. Tunxis Mgt., No. Cv 97-0567959-S (Jul. 8, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8318 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8318 (D.A.N. Joint Venture II v. Tunxis Mgt., No. Cv 97-0567959-S (Jul. 8, 1998)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related