DocketNumber: No. CV94 73683
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1365-Z
Judges: STANLEY, J.
Filed Date: 2/20/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant argues that count one should be stricken because the complaint alleges that the partnership, not the plaintiff individually, has incurred losses and expenses. Therefore, any losses or expenses alleged are those of the partnership and not the plaintiff. If a partnership agreement as delineated in General Statutes §
The defendant argues that count two should also be stricken because the plaintiff does not allege that any personal tax or accounting services were actually rendered. The plaintiff argues, however, that the complaint specifically alleges that services were performed. Although the plaintiff alleged performance in his original and first revised complaint, the second revised complaint, which is controlling, does not include any such language. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike count two of the second revised complaint is granted.
BY THE COURT
STANLEY, J.