DocketNumber: No. 058307
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5937
Judges: PICKETT, J.
Filed Date: 6/18/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
In Count Three, the plaintiff states that "[p]aragraphs
On May 27, 1992, the defendants filed a motion to strike the third count of the complaint as well as paragraphs four and five of the prayer for relief. Attached to this motion was a supporting memorandum.
The motion to strike is provided for in Practice Book 151-158. A motion to strike tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading and "admits all facts well pleaded." Ferryman v. Groton,
Practice Book 155 states, "[i]f an adverse party objects to this motion he shall, at least five days before the date the motion is to be considered on the short calendar, file and serve a memorandum of law." Practice Book 155. Here, the plaintiff has failed to file a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to strike. Prior to October 1, 1989, the failure to file an opposing memorandum of law was deemed as consent to the motion to strike. See, e.g., Hughes v. Bemer,
In their memorandum in support of their motion to strike the defendants contend that because the plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support its CUTPA claim, that claim is legally insufficient. Furthermore, the defendants contend that because paragraphs four and five of the prayer for relief are predicated upon a CUTPA claim, this prayer for relief is also legally insufficient.
In this case, the plaintiff, in count three of its complaint, claims that "the foregoing acts and conduct" alleged in that count were performed in the conduct of trade or business and constitute a violation of CUTPA. While the court is required to construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff when considering a motion to strike, Gordon, supra, there must be facts to construe, in the present matter, there are no facts alleged in this count to support a CUTPA claim. Consequently, the count is legally insufficient. Furthermore, because paragraphs four and five of the prayer for relief are predicated upon count three, they, too, are legally insufficient. Accordingly, the motion to CT Page 5939 strike is granted.
PICKETT, J.