Opinion
NNHCV156058890S
05-10-2016
John's Refuse & Recycling, LLC v. For Like, LLC et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Jon M. Alander, Judge of the Superior Court.
The plaintiff has filed this action asserting claims of unjust enrichment and account stated against six separate defendants. The defendants have filed a motion to strike the complaint on the grounds that it constitutes a misjoinder of parties.
In its complaint, the plaintiff alleges that it entered into a separate agreement with each of the six individual defendants for refuse collection at distinct properties. Each of the breached agreements is a separate and distinct agreement with a single defendant involving unrelated properties. Each of the defendants is a separate corporation or limited liability corporation. The defendants assert that it is improper to assert in a single complaint unrelated claims involving distinct legal entities. I agree.
" The exclusive remedy for misjoinder of parties is a motion to strike." P.B. § 11-3. Naming an improper person or legal entity as a party in a legal action constitutes misjoinder. Bloom v. Miklovich, 111 Conn.App. 323, 329, 958 A.2d 1283 (2008). While it is possible to unite several causes of action in one complaint, they must arise out of " the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action, " and " the several causes of action so united . . . shall affect all the parties to the action." General Statutes § 52-97 and Practice Book § 10-21. Here, the plaintiff is attempting to join in one lawsuit separate and distinct collection actions. The collection actions neither arise out of the same transaction connected with the same subject of action nor affect all the parties to the action.
The defendants seek to have the entire complaint stricken as a result of the misjoinder of parties. Practice Book § 9-19 provides that no action shall be defeated by the misjoinder of parties. See also General Statutes § 52-108. Rather, the court may order that misjoined parties be dropped " as it deems the interest of justice require." Practice Book § 9-19 and General Statutes § 52-108. Accordingly, I hereby order that the plaintiff file an amended complaint removing five of the six named defendants from the action. The plaintiff may proceed in this lawsuit with its claims against one of the named defendants.