DocketNumber: No. CV90 0278480 S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2733
Judges: McGRATH, J.
Filed Date: 3/27/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The plaintiff objects to the requested revision and claims that the request to revise does not solely address the first count of the original complaint, the only count that the plaintiff replead. The plaintiff further claims that the requested revision does not conform with Connecticut Practice Book 112 because the defendant already filed a request to revise and that filing a second request makes the pleadings out of order.
The defendants counter that the plaintiff's substituted complaint triggers a new beginning to the order of the pleadings, making defendant's request to revise proper.
Connecticut Practice Book 112 states a motion to strike should be filed after a request to revise. Connecticut Practice Book 113 also states, in pertinent part:
"when the court does not otherwise order, the filing of any pleading provided for by CT Page 2734 the preceding section [112] will waive the right to file any pleading which might have been filed in due order and which provides it in the order of pleading provided in that section."
"[G]enerally, pleadings are not to be filed out of the order specified in 112, and a filing of a pleading listed later in the order set out by 112 waives the right to be heard on a pleading that appears earlier on that list." Sabino v. Ruffolo,
In BRT Corporation v. New England Masonary Co.,
Based on the case law above, the court finds that the defendant may properly file a request to revise the substituted complaint. Therefore, the plaintiff's objection to the request to revise the substituted complaint is overruled.
W. JOSEPH McGRATH, JUDGE