DocketNumber: No. 518907
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4006
Judges: PURTILL, J.
Filed Date: 5/1/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Plaintiff claims that the second counterclaim is insufficient in law in that the factual allegations, are inadequate to sustain the claim under CUTPA.
A motion to strike is the proper vehicle for attacking the legal sufficiency of a pleading. See, Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.,
In describing whether an action or practice is unfair, so as to be actionable under CUTPA, the Supreme Court of this state has adopted the criteria set forth in the "cigarette rule" of the Federal Courts. See Mead v. Burns,
It is noted that the motion to strike admits only facts well pleaded and not legal conclusion. Considering all of the facts alleged in the second counterclaim and the facts necessarily implied by and fairly provable under such facts it must be found that defendant has failed to allege a cause of action under CUTPA and the motion to strike must be granted.
Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted.
PURTILL, J.