Mastroberti v. Centerbank, No. 052779 (Nov. 16, 1990)
This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3684 (Mastroberti v. Centerbank, No. 052779 (Nov. 16, 1990)) 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.
Opinion
The defendants Kenneth Doyon and Joel Doyon move to strike the second count of the complaint on the grounds that Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for civil conspiracy. While technically there does not exist a cause of action for conspiracy, one can nevertheless bring an action for damages caused by acts committed pursuant to a conspiracy. Benoit v. Amalgamated Local 299,
The fourth count of the complaint states that through the actions of the defendant Kenneth Doyon the defendant Centerbank breached its duty to keep certain information confidential. The fourth count also alleges CT Page 3685 that Kenneth Doyon had a duty to keep such information confidential. A motion to strike admits all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations of the complaint. Amodio v. Cunningham,
Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.
McDONALD, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mastroberti-v-centerbank-no-052779-nov-16-1990-connsuperct-1990.