Opinion
No. CV05-4015086S
May 12, 2008
Count One
The "same transaction" test is one of practicality to be resolved in the court's discretion. Its purpose is to promote judicial economy by avoiding multiple actions and piecemeal litigation of what is essentially one action. Wallingford v. Glenn Valley Associates, Inc., 190 Conn. 158, 161 (1983).
When read in the light most favorable to sustaining it this count alleges a continuing course of dealing between the parties from 1997 to 2003 involving contracts for both advertising and telephone service sufficient to satisfy the above test. The plaintiff cannot isolate a specific time or contract within that period. Nor can this court conclude that there is no potential overlap of evidence between the original complaint and Count One at least with respect to the extent of monetary damages claimed by the plaintiff.
Motion denied as to Count One.
Count Two
In his objection the defendant describes his setoff claim as one asking for an accounting for overpayments on both his telephone service and advertising contracts that should reduce his current debts. This is not a setoff and is no more than a restatement of his claim for an accounting in Count One. Nomenclature does not control. As a matter of substance there is no practical distinction in the plain meaning of Count Two.
In any event, as a matter of law, even when read in the light most favorable to the defendant, neither expressly nor by fair inference has the defendant pled the necessary predicate debt extrinsic to the original action in order to establish a setoff. Program Plus, Inc. v. Bonazzo, 8 Conn. L. Rptr. 575 (April 6, 1993). All the defendant has done is again claim an accounting not a setoff. The court notes that in his prayers for relief in both counts the defendant seeks identical relief.
Prayers for Relief
In accordance with the foregoing this motion to strike is granted only as to Count Two.