DocketNumber: No. CV 93-0456711S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5185
Judges: LAVINE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/10/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Court's earlier ruling on the motion to strike, to the extent it is relevant to the present request, required the plaintiff to merge the third and sixth counts of her complaint.1 Essentially, the plaintiff's allegations in both counts stated a claim against the defendants based on reckless conduct and therefore were repetitious.
The plaintiff has complied with the directives of the court by correcting the deficiencies noted in the ruling on the motion to strike. Accordingly, the plaintiff's objection to the Request to Revise is sustained. For purposes of clarity, however, the plaintiff is directed to make the modifications proposed by her in her Objection to the Request to Revise, filed with this court on April 11, 1994.
This court also notes that the requested revisions are directed at portions of the pleadings that are identical to those in the original complaint. The amended complaint does not allege a new cause of action. Accordingly, the present request to revise, directed at allegations unchanged by, and filed subsequent to the motion to strike, is untimely pursuant to our general rules of pleading. See Practice Book §§ 112, 113.
DOUGLAS S. LAVINE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT