Opinion
No. HHB CV045000085
November 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE
The defendants have filed a Motion to Strike the second count of plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the motion claiming that the defendants have not complied with Practice Book § 10-41 in that they have failed to set forth in the body of the motion the specific grounds of the insufficiency of the second count. Although the defendant has addressed the grounds of the insufficiency in its memorandum of law accompanying the Motion to Strike, the plaintiff argues that this is not enough to meet the requirements of the Practice Book.
In Bouchard v. People's Bank, 219 Conn. 465, 594 A.2d 1 (1991) the Supreme Court noted that "[t]he defendant's motion to strike simply stated that the plaintiff had `failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.' Because the defendant did not specify the distinct reasons for the claimed insufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint in its motion, the motion was `fatally defective' under Practice Book [§ 10-41] notwithstanding the defendant's inclusion of such reasons in its supporting memorandum. See Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., 200 Conn. 676, 683 n. 5, 513 A.2d 66 (1986)." Id., 468 n. 4. "Practice Book [§ 10-42], which requires a motion to strike to be accompanied by an appropriate memorandum of law citing the legal authorities upon which the motion relies, does not dispense with the requirement of [Practice Book § 10-41] that the reasons for the claimed pleading deficiency be specified in the motion itself." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, 64 Conn.App. 9, 13-14, 779 A.2d 198 (2001), rev'd on other grounds, 81 Conn.App. 798, 842 A.2d 1134 (2003).
For the foregoing reasons the Motion to Strike the second count of the plaintiff's complaint is denied. CT Page 14064-kd