DocketNumber: No. 555568
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 12474
Judges: <footnote_body>[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]</footnote_body> HURLEY, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 9/10/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In July 1997, the plaintiff told the defendant that the purchase of the defaulted mortgages had to be completed, but the plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase due to non financial personal reasons. The defendant agreed to purchase the defaulted mortgages on behalf of the partnership, and plaintiff gave the defendant the necessary contact and contract information. On July 8, 1997, representing himself as the plaintiff's partner, the defendant purchased the defaulted mortgages and assigned them to the defendant's own corporation, CCi, Inc. The defendant CT Page 12475 told the plaintiff that he, through CCi, Inc., had purchased the defaulted mortgages, and would hold them until the partnership was finalized. The defendant later told the plaintiff that he would not be involved in the partnership and then refused to sell the mortgages to the plaintiff.
On December 6, 2000, the plaintiff filed a revised complaint against the defendant, alleging, in four counts, fraud, breach of a fiduciary duty, intentional interference with a business relationship and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). On March 14, 2001, the defendant filed a motion to strike the CUTPA claim on the ground that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief.
The defendant moves to strike the CUTPA claim on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to allege that the defendant was engaged in trade or commerce and that the plaintiff has failed to allege more than a single deceptive act by the defendant.
CUTPA provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes §
This court has held repeatedly that a plaintiff must allege more than a single deceptive or unfair act in order to invoke CUTPA. Spakowski v.Charter Oak Walk-in Medical Center, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 528137 (June 2, 1994, Hurley, J.) (
The plaintiff does not specifically set forth what acts of the defendant give rise to a CUTPA violation but merely incorporates the allegations of the fraud claim into the CUTPA claim. The incorporated allegations are that the "defendant defrauded the plaintiff by representing to the plaintiff that he would purchase the mortgages [and] had no intention of continuing with the partnership agreement, thereby inducing the plaintiff to provide the contract information to the defendant." (Complaint, Count One, ¶ 18.) The plaintiff has not alleged more than a single deceptive act or practice. Further, the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant was acting in a trade or business. Despite the plaintiff's argument that the intent of the partnership was to purchase, renovate and lease out the complex's units, the partnership had not been established, and the defendant's alleged deceptive act was done outside the scope of any business or trade. The plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant's conduct was done during the course of "any trade or commerce."
The plaintiff has not alleged sufficiently a CUTPA violation. Therefore, the defendant's motion to strike count four is granted.
D. Michael Hurley, Judge Trial Referee