DocketNumber: No. CV 96 03 34348 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10158
Judges: MELVILLE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/14/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
"The granting of a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Practice Book § 204B,1 is within the sound discretion of the trial court. . . . The court is not precluded from reexamining its own decision, within a reasonable time after its rendition, if it appears that otherwise injustice may result. . . ." (Citations omitted.) Sammarco v. Hillside Village CondominiumAssn., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 403926 (January 5, 1998. Levin, J.).
Upon reexamining the decision on the defendants' motion to strike, this court concludes that defendant's motion to reconsider should be denied. As stated in the original memorandum of decision, when viewing the allegations in the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including facts necessarily implied and fairly provable under the allegations; Westport Bank Trust Co. v. Corcoran, Mallin Aresco,
Furthermore, the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's CUTPA claim does not depend upon an employer/employee relationship with the defendants, but on her dual persona as an alleged business competitor of the defendants. Where the acts complained of occur outside the employer/employee relationship, a potentially viable cause of action under CUTPA is properly alleged. Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen,
In addition, the defendants seek to stretch the court's ruling on the tortious interference with business relationship count too far. As argued by the defendants, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to allege facts demonstrating that she suffered actual loss. This conclusion was reached only as to count six, however. Although the court indicated that the same facts were alleged for all of the counts, this should not be construed as meaning that each count were supported by the same exact allegations. Rather, the initial introductory paragraphs (
Finally, because both the antitrust and CUTPA claims were legally sufficient, and each embodies an important public policy, the court has refused to strike counts three and seven of the amended complaint.
For these reasons, the defendants motion for reconsideration of the court's decision on motion to strike # 105 are hereby Granted, but the relief sought is Denied.
MELVILLE, JUDGE