Gear v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., No. Cv99-0088195-S (Dec. 17, 1999)
Opinion
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 §
"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.)
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
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16292 (Gear v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., No. Cv99-0088195-S (Dec. 17, 1999)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.