Fredericks v. J.F. Fredericks Tool, No. Cv02 0815957 S (Oct. 8, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Fredericks v. J.F. Fredericks Tool, No. Cv02 0815957 S (Oct. 8, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13169

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 8, 2002

DocketNo. CV02 0815957 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13169 (Fredericks v. J.F. Fredericks Tool, No. Cv02 0815957 S (Oct. 8, 2002)) 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

Fredericks v. J.F. Fredericks Tool, No. Cv02 0815957 S (Oct. 8, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13169 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON MOTIONS TO STRIKE Ruling as to #105 (motion to strike amended complaint):

Motion to strike granted as to count five. There is no allegation that the plaintiff relied on an allegedly fraudulent representation to her detriment. The allegation that she defended herself against tax liability is not the result of her reliance on allegedly false statements. SeeBarbara Weisman, Trustee v. Kaspar, 233 Conn. 531, 539 (1995).

Motion to strike denied as to count six. Although the arguments on this issue were cast in terms of fraud, I find that the allegations could support the finding of a breach of fiduciary duty owed by a majority shareholder to a minority shareholder. See Governor's Grove Condominiumv. Hill Development, 36 Conn. Sup. 144, 155 (1980) (Borden, J.)

Ruling as to #107 (motion to strike counterclaims): Denied. Depending on the evidence, relief could be granted as to counts two, three, four and five. As to count eight, culpability greater than negligence is required, and it is so pleaded.

___________________, J. Beach CT Page 13170

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