Skelly v. First Union National Bank, No. Cv99 0172159 (Nov. 3, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Skelly v. First Union National Bank, No. Cv99 0172159 (Nov. 3, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14471

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 3, 1999

DocketNo. CV99 0172159

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14471 (Skelly v. First Union National Bank, No. Cv99 0172159 (Nov. 3, 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

Skelly v. First Union National Bank, No. Cv99 0172159 (Nov. 3, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14471 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant's motion to dismiss (#106) based on preemption under the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is denied because lump sum payments do not, inter alia, require any ongoing administration and are thus not covered under ERISA. SeeFort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 12 (1987).

Moreover, the defendant's motion to strike (#102) the second and third counts of the complaint is denied because the second count states a sustainable cause of action for a statutory wage claim and the third count similarly states a sustainable cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See Cook v. Alexander Alexander of Connecticut, Inc.,40 Conn. Sup. 246, 248-49, 488 A.2d 1295 (1985) (discussing statutory wage claims and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing).

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike are both denied.

So Ordered.

Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 3rd day of November, 1999.

William B. Lewis, Judge CT Page 14472

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 defendant's motion to dismiss (#106) based on preemption under the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is denied because lump sum payments do not, inter alia, require any ongoing administration and are thus not covered under ERISA. SeeFort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 12 (1987).

Moreover, the defendant's motion to strike (#102) the second and third counts of the complaint is denied because the second count states a sustainable cause of action for a statutory wage claim and the third count similarly states a sustainable cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See Cook v. Alexander Alexander of Connecticut, Inc.,40 Conn. Sup. 246, 248-49, 488 A.2d 1295 (1985) (discussing statutory wage claims and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing).

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike are both denied.

So Ordered.

Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 3rd day of November, 1999.

William B. Lewis, Judge CT Page 14472

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skelly-v-first-union-national-bank-no-cv99-0172159-nov-3-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack