DocketNumber: No. 373030
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 14378
Judges: ZOARSKI, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/26/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On October 18, 1995, the defendant filed a motion to strike two of the eight counts and a memorandum of law in support of the motion. The plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in opposition.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to `contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff." Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v.BOC Group, Inc.,
The plaintiff has not submitted a memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant's motion to strike as required by Practice Book § 155. However, "[s]ection 155 was amended effective October 1, 1989, to delete a provision that the non-movant consents to the motion to strike by failing to timely file an opposing memorandum. Although a timely opposing memorandum is required, the failure to so file it can be waived by the trial court." CT Page 14379Fitzpatrick v. East Hartford B.P.O. Elks, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 380905 (Jan. 25, 1991, Clark, J.).
The defendant moves to strike the first two counts of the plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that "Connecticut law does not recognize a cause of action of strict liability in tort for a landlord's violation of the lead paint statutes." The defendant relies on a recent Supreme Court case, Gore v. People's SavingsBank,
The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that "[t]he injuries to the plaintiff as set forth above were caused by the defendant's violation of Conn. Gen. Stats. sections
"Our rules of practice require that a motion to strike raising claims of legal insufficiency separately set forth each such claim of insufficiency and distinctly specify the reason or reasons for each such claimed insufficiency. See Practice Book 154." North ParkMortgage Services, Inc. v. Pinette,
The plaintiffs have alleged violations of both state and federal law, as well as local ordinances, laws and regulations. The defendant's motion to strike and memorandum of law is, however, only addressed to the insufficiency of plaintiffs' claims under Connecticut law. The court cannot strike the state statutory claims and leave the municipal and federal statutory claims when all the claims are contained within the same paragraph of the same count. Therefore the defendant's motion to strike counts one and two are denied.
Howard F. Zoarski, Judge CT Page 14380