Opinion
CV156030032S
07-25-2016
Elaine Stuhlman v. Rebecca Waldo et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM
PETER EMMETT WIESE, J.
I
Procedural History
Pending before the court is the plaintiff's, Elaine Stuhlman, motion to strike count two of the defendants', Rebecca and Mark Waldo, counterclaim alleging abuse of process arising out of a residential lease dispute. The plaintiff argues that count two should be stricken because the defendants fail to allege an invalid or ulterior purpose to support the abuse of discretion claim. The defendants oppose the motion, arguing that filing a complaint to recover money that the plaintiff knows is not justly owed to her is an invalid purpose for abuse of process.
II
Discussion
" An action for abuse of process lies against any person using a legal process against another in an improper manner or to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed . . . Because the tort arises out of the accomplishment of a result that could not be achieved by the proper and successful use of process, the Restatement Second (1977) of Torts, § 682, emphasizes that the gravamen of the action for abuse of process is the use of a legal process . . . against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed . . ." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490, 494, 529 A.2d 171 (1987). In Mozzochi, the court granted the motion to strike the abuse of process claim stating " it is useful to note . . . what the complaint does not allege. There is no claim that the defendants undertook any action outside of the normal course of proceedings in the [underlying] case itself . . . [T]here is no claim that the defendants' purpose in pursing the [underlying] case was to gain any collateral advantage extraneous to its merits. The only injury of which the plaintiff complains is that the defendants improperly continued to pursue the [underlying] case in order to enrich themselves . . . at the plaintiff's expense." Id., 493-94.
Similarly here, the defendants do not allege any ulterior purpose outside of the plaintiff disputing the money owed under the lease. There are no allegations of the plaintiff's desire to gain any collateral advantage extraneous to its merits and the abuse of process claim is not legally sufficient. See Sacred Heart University v. Voll, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-15-6048244-S (April 25, 2016, Kamp, J.) [62 Conn.L.Rptr. 220, ]; Bender Plumbing Supplies, Inc. v. S& S Services, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-04-0287111-S, (December 14, 2004, Tanzer, J.); and TCW Realty Fund II v. Pearle Vision, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CVH-4990HD, (October 29, 1996, Beach, J.). Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted.
III
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion to strike count two of the defendants' counterclaim is granted.
SO ORDERED