DocketNumber: No. CV95 0380041
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5261-DDDDDDDDD, 17 Conn. L. Rptr. 463
Judges: HODGSON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/23/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The sole ground set forth in the text of the motion to strike is the plaintiff s claim that the second count "fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted in that it fails to allege that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is that of a vendor and consumer so as to bring the defendant's claim within the provisions of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Connecticut General Statutes Section
At oral argument, the movant attempted to raise other grounds for striking the CUTPA claim. These grounds were not set forth in the motion to strike.
Practice Book § 154 requires that "[e]ach motion to strike raising any of the claims of legal insufficiency enumerated in [Section 152] shall separately set forth each such claim of insufficiency and shall distinctly specify the reason or reasons for each such claimed insufficiency."
In light of this rule, the court is limited to considering only the claimed insufficiency stated in the text of the motion as filed.
1. Standard
The function of a motion to strike is to test the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Practice Book § 152; Ferryman v.Groton,
The CUTPA Claim
In the second count of the counterclaim, to which the plaintiff's motion to strike is directed, the defendant alleges that between April 1990 and July 1995 it sold scrap metal to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff picked up the scrap metal as requested but failed to tender the payment for it either in whole or in part. The defendant additionally alleges that a sales representative of the plaintiff offered money to employees of the defendant "as an inducement to cause the defendant to do business with the plaintiff" (Count Two, para. 9), and that after the defendant refused to enter into a long term contract with the plaintiff, the plaintiff alleged the existence of a contract agreed to by a former employee of the defendant that the defendant did not know of and had not authorized. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff's acts were unfair or deceptive practices in the course of its trade or business and that they caused the defendant to suffer an ascertainable loss.
The plaintiff claims that the allegations summarized above do not state a cause of action because they do not allege an injury or loss to a consumer.
It has been held by the Connecticut Supreme Court that CUTPA is not limited to claims of unfair trade practices perpetrated by vendors against consumers but that it extends to unfair or deceptive actions between competitors or other persons in a business relationship.
In Larsen Chelsey Realty Company v. Larsen,
The Court ruled unequivocally that "the application of CUTPA does not depend upon a consumer relationship." Larsen ChelseyRealty Co. v. Larsen,
Accordingly, the sole ground raised in the motion to strike is not supported by case law interpreting the scope of CUTPA.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike the second count of the counterclaim is denied.
Beverly J. Hodgson Judge of the Superior Court