DocketNumber: No. 31 75 81
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 3094
Judges: STODOLINK, J.
Filed Date: 3/30/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On December 30, 1994, the defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that (1) the plaintiff has filed this action against the "wrong party" in that the defendant "has already answered the original complaint of Plaintiff by denying all material allegations contained in the original complaint and the Defendant has further Specially Pleaded that there was neither a written nor any other type of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant,"1 and (2) all invoices received for the work allegedly performed by the plaintiff were dated more than three years prior to the commencement of this action and are therefore barred by the operation of General Statutes, Sec.
The defendant has not filed a memorandum of law, but has filed copies of two invoices in support of his motion.3 The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant's motion.
The purpose of the motion to strike is to challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint. Gordon v.Bridgeport Housing Authority,
First, the plaintiff argues in its opposition memorandum that the parts and services it seeks recover for were provided to the defendant at the defendant's behest and pursuant to an agreement entered into with the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff maintains that taking the allegations as true, the defendant's claim that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit for purposes of this motion and is a question of fact that must be determined by the trier of fact.
Second, the plaintiff postulates that the statute of limitations for a simple contract is six years pursuant to General Statutes, Sec.
Practice Book, Sec. 155 states that "[e]ach motion to strike must be accompanied by an appropriate memorandum of law citing the legal authorities upon which the motion relies." The defendant's motion could be denied for his failure to file a memorandum of law in support of his motion to strike in violation of section 155.
Even if the court were to consider the defendant's motion in its present posture, the motion can be denied as a "speaking" motion to strike. "`In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint.'" NovametrixMedical Systems v. Boc Group, Inc.,
The basis of the defendant's claim that this action was filed against the "wrong party" because no contract existed between the parties is predicated upon evidence which must be adduced at trial and is not properly raised by motion to strike. See, e.g.,Fraser v. Henninger,
Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion to strike is denied.
Stodolink, J.