DocketNumber: No. CV 99 01511811
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 13529
Judges: DOHERTY, JUDGE. CT Page 13530
Filed Date: 10/8/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
He argues that in twelve of the thirteen special defenses [excepting the third special defense], the defendant merely states that, "the plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to . . ." and that in each of those special defenses the defendant has failed to allege any facts addressed to the allegations in the complaint. The plaintiff maintains that, consequently, none of those twelve special defenses are in conformity with the Practice Rule Sec.
Practice Rule
A motion to strike is properly used to challenge the legal sufficiency of special defenses. Connecticut National Bank vs. Voog,
A motion to strike is properly granted if the [pleading] alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged. Novametrics Medical Systems, Inc. vs. BOC Group, Inc.,
Despite the plaintiff's claim that all twelve of those special defenses are devoid of facts, the court notes that the defendant's thirteen special defense does contain a factual statement specially plead ["the CCPA does not provide for a private cause of action"].
For the foregoing reasons, those twelve special defenses — excepting the thirteenth special defense — are stricken. The motion to strike the thirteenth special defense is denied.
As for the third special defense, the plaintiff argues that while it does contain facts [that the plaintiff either abandoned CT Page 13531 or returned the car to the defendant], those are not factsconsistent with the statements in the plaintiff's complaint and, in fact, they do not even address the allegations in the complaint [that the defendant failed to comply with the provisions of the repossession statutes].
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby grants the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's third special defense.
By the Court,
Joseph W. Doherty, Judge