DocketNumber: No. CV97 0159022 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 829
Judges: D'ANDREA, J.
Filed Date: 1/16/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On August 7, 1997, the defendants filed a third party complaint against the third party defendants. The third party defendants have filed a motion to strike this complaint on the ground that "it is insufficient as a matter of law because it does not state a claim for indemnity or contribution." The defendants/third party plaintiffs have filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion.
"The proper method to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint is to make a motion to strike prior to trial." Gulackv. Gulack,
General Statutes §
"An impleading party has the burden of alleging facts sufficient to bring an action within the requirements of the statute. . . . As a fundamental and threshold requirement, a third party plaintiff must allege that the third party defendant is or may be liable to the third party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him." Commissioner v. LakePhipps Land Owners Corp.,
In the present case, the defendants/third party plaintiffs have failed to allege that the third party defendants may be liable to the defendants for all or part of the plaintiffs' claim against them.
The defendants argue that General Statutes §
General Statutes §
Finally, the defendants state, in a footnote without discussion, that Judge Karazin's granting of their motion to implead the third-party defendants "raises the issue" of the doctrine of "the law of the case."
"The law of the case is not written in stone but is a flexible principle of many facets adaptable to the exigencies of the different situations in which it may be invoked. . . . In essence it expresses the practice of judges generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided and is not a limitation on their power. . . . Where a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided, in the absence of some new or overriding circumstance." Breen v. Phelps,
The doctrine of "the law of the case" is inapplicable to the motion before the court. Judge Karazin previously granted the defendants' motion to implead. Judge Karazin did not rule, however, on the legal sufficiency of the defendants' third party complaint. This court's ruling will have no effect on Judge Karazin's decision. Rather, this court is ruling on the legal CT Page 832 sufficiency of the pleading which was filed pursuant to Judge Karazin's order.
The third party complaint is legally insufficient. Therefore, the third party defendants' motion to strike the defendants' complaint is granted.
D'ANDREA, J.