DocketNumber: No. CV97 033 99 40 S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 1266, 23 Conn. L. Rptr. 73
Judges: SKOLNICK, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/4/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant filed an answer and three-count revised counterclaim, alleging in part that the plaintiff's own actions constituted a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The plaintiff now moves to strike count two of the revised counterclaim sounding in CUTPA on the ground that it fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief may be sought. Specifically the plaintiff argues that although there is a split of authority as to whether CUTPA is applicable to a one-time sale of a business by a party not in the business of selling businesses, the better-reasoned approach is that it is not. The defendant argues in response that the motion to strike should be denied as the plaintiff failed to adequately state the ground for the motion to strike within the motion itself. The defendant also argues that CUTPA has been applied to a one-time sale of a business by parties not in the business of selling businesses.
"Each motion to strike raising any of the claims of legal insufficiency enumerated in [§ 153, now §
This court addressed whether CUTPA applied to the one-time sale of a private residence in Pfeffer v. Fontana, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 340872 (December 30, 1997) (Skolnick, J.). In Pfeffer, this court agreed that such a sale did not support a claim under CUTPA because where CUTPA has been applied to a single transaction, the defendant was an entity or individual engaged in a business activity which was at the heart of the complaint of the alleged violation. See Jokl v. Watt, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 372000 (February 28, 1996) (Gray, J.). This court also agreed with the reasoning that "CUTPA cannot be read to cover a single transaction between individuals which is not in the ordinary course of a trade or business."McCarthy v. Fingelly, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 268839 (May 28, 1991) (Katz,J.) (
For the same reasons, this court finds that the private one-time sale of a business by a party not in the business of making such sales does not fall under CUTPA.1 Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to strike the second count of the revised counterclaim is granted.
SKOLNICK, J.