Gear v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., No. Cv99-0088195-S (Dec. 17, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Gear v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., No. Cv99-0088195-S (Dec. 17, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16292

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 17, 1999

DocketNo. CV99-0088195-S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16292 (Gear v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., No. Cv99-0088195-S (Dec. 17, 1999)) 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

Gear v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., No. Cv99-0088195-S (Dec. 17, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16292 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (#121) The plaintiff, Patrick Gear, while employed by the defendant, CT Page 16293 Environmental Concepts, Inc. (ECI), allegedly sustained physical and emotional injuries while working at a contaminated site. In January of 1999, Gear filed a four-count complaint against ECI, Hansen Cummins, president of ECI, AIG Environmental Management (AIG EM) and AIG Insurance Company (AIG), which he then amended. He subsequently filed a second amended complaint on July 9, 1999; that complaint alleges causes of action for assault (counts one), negligence (count two), intentional infliction of emotional distress (count three) and fraud (count four).

On August 3, 1999, defendants AGI EM and AIG filed a motion to strike¹ all four counts of the plaintiff's second amended complaint and submitted the requisite memorandum of law. Although the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to strike filed by defendants ECI and Cummins; see footnote 1; he did not file, in accordance with the rules of practice, an objection nor a memorandum of law in opposition to AIG EM and AIG's motion to. Practice Book § 10-42.

"Failure to file such [an objection and memorandum of law] may still serve as a ground for granting the motion to strike."Olshefski v. Stenner, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 351899 (September 27, 1990) (Clark, J.) 2 Conn. L. Rptr. 477, 478; Farmington v.Dowling, 22 Conn. App. 564, 566, 577 A.2d 1128 (1990)

Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's second amended complaint ought to be and is hereby granted.

By the Court

Arena, 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 ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (#121) The plaintiff, Patrick Gear, while employed by the defendant, CT Page 16293 Environmental Concepts, Inc. (ECI), allegedly sustained physical and emotional injuries while working at a contaminated site. In January of 1999, Gear filed a four-count complaint against ECI, Hansen Cummins, president of ECI, AIG Environmental Management (AIG EM) and AIG Insurance Company (AIG), which he then amended. He subsequently filed a second amended complaint on July 9, 1999; that complaint alleges causes of action for assault (counts one), negligence (count two), intentional infliction of emotional distress (count three) and fraud (count four).

On August 3, 1999, defendants AGI EM and AIG filed a motion to strike¹ all four counts of the plaintiff's second amended complaint and submitted the requisite memorandum of law. Although the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to strike filed by defendants ECI and Cummins; see footnote 1; he did not file, in accordance with the rules of practice, an objection nor a memorandum of law in opposition to AIG EM and AIG's motion to. Practice Book § 10-42.

"Failure to file such [an objection and memorandum of law] may still serve as a ground for granting the motion to strike."Olshefski v. Stenner, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 351899 (September 27, 1990) (Clark, J.) 2 Conn. L. Rptr. 477, 478; Farmington v.Dowling, 22 Conn. App. 564, 566, 577 A.2d 1128 (1990)

Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's second amended complaint ought to be and is hereby granted.

By the Court

Arena, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gear-v-environmental-concepts-inc-no-cv99-0088195-s-dec-17-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack