Waldo v. R.H.M. Properties, LLC, No. 557367 (Mar. 28, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Waldo v. R.H.M. Properties, LLC, No. 557367 (Mar. 28, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3802, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 657

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided March 28, 2002·No. No. 557367·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE (#133) The defendant RHM Properties LLC (RHM) filed an answer, special defenses and counterclaim on August 30, 2001. The plaintiff, Russell W. Waldo, filed a motion to strike RHM's special defenses and counterclaim on October 4, 2001. On February 19, 2002, the plaintiff filed a reply to the RHM's special defenses and an answer to RHM's counterclaim.

"The filing of the reply operated as a withdrawal of the [motion to strike] previously interposed by the same party. . . ." Mangusi v.Vigiliotti, 104 Conn. 291, 294, 132 A. 464 (1926). Similarly, by filing an answer to the counterclaim, the plaintiff waived the right to have the court determine the legal sufficiency of the counterclaim. Sachs v.Feinn, 121 Conn. 77, 80, 183 A. 384 (1936); Kwiechien v. Gordon,33 Conn. Sup. 637, 638 n. 2, 365 A.2d 118 (1976); see also Practice Book §§ 10-6 and 10-7. For these reasons, no ruling is necessary on the plaintiff's motion to strike.

______________________________________ D. Michael Hurley, Judge Trial Referee

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 RE: MOTION TO STRIKE (#133) The defendant RHM Properties LLC (RHM) filed an answer, special defenses and counterclaim on August 30, 2001. The plaintiff, Russell W. Waldo, filed a motion to strike RHM's special defenses and counterclaim on October 4, 2001. On February 19, 2002, the plaintiff filed a reply to the RHM's special defenses and an answer to RHM's counterclaim.

"The filing of the reply operated as a withdrawal of the [motion to strike] previously interposed by the same party. . . ." Mangusi v.Vigiliotti, 104 Conn. 291, 294, 132 A. 464 (1926). Similarly, by filing an answer to the counterclaim, the plaintiff waived the right to have the court determine the legal sufficiency of the counterclaim. Sachs v.Feinn, 121 Conn. 77, 80, 183 A. 384 (1936); Kwiechien v. Gordon,33 Conn. Sup. 637, 638 n. 2, 365 A.2d 118 (1976); see also Practice Book §§ 10-6 and 10-7. For these reasons, no ruling is necessary on the plaintiff's motion to strike.

______________________________________ D. Michael Hurley, Judge Trial Referee

Waldo v. R.H.M. Properties, LLC, No. 557367 (Mar. 28, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3802, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 657 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3802 (Waldo v. R.H.M. Properties, LLC, No. 557367 (Mar. 28, 2002)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related