Opinion
No. CV 05 4003048 S
September 29, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM
This is a defamation action arising out of statements made or testimony given by the defendant Lloyd Mellad on or about November 23, 2004 at a public hearing held by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. In these statements, the defendant allegedly stated that the plaintiff, the president of Stamford Yellow Cab, Inc. is a racist and treats his employees of color differently from white employees in that he does not allow them to use the bathroom or the water fountain. The defendant is associated with a rival taxi company and the statements were made at a hearing to determine whether a third entity would be given permission to operate taxi cabs in the City of Stamford. By way of counterclaim, the defendant asserts violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act as well as antitrust violations. The plaintiff has moved to strike the counterclaim. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
Standard of Review
A motion to strike is the appropriate vehicle by which to challenge the propriety of a counterclaim. See Wallingford v. Glen Valley Associates, Inc., 190 Conn. 158 (1983); Wesport News, Inc. v. Minuteman Press Inc., 1996 WL 737526 (Conn.Sup. Melville, J.)
Practice Book Section 10-10 provides in pertinent part as follows:
In any action for legal or equitable relief any defendant may file counterclaims against any plaintiff . . . provided that each such counterclaim . . . CT Page 12005-cs arises out of the transaction or one of the transactions which is the subject of the plaintiff's complaint, . . .
This is a rule designed to permit the joinder of closely related claims where such joinder is in the best interests of judicial economy. Wallingford v. Glen Valley Associates, Inc., 190 Conn. at 161. "To arise out of the same transaction, the allegations of the counterclaim must be so connected with the matter in controversy that its consideration is necessary for a full determination of the rights of the parties relative to the matter in controversy under the complaint." Westport News v. Minuteman Press, Inc., supra, citing Springfield-DeWitt Gardens v. Wood, 143 Conn. 708, 711-12 (1956).
"The `transaction test' is one of practicality, . . . Where the underlying purposes of [the Practice Book], to wit, judicial economy, avoidance of multiplicity of litigation, and avoidance of piecemeal disposition of what is essentially one action, are thwarted rather than served by the filing of a cross claim, the cross claim may properly be expunged." Wallingford v. Glen Valley Associates, Inc., 190 Conn. at 161, citing, Jackson v. Conland, 171 Conn. 161, 166-67 (1976). One question is whether a substantial duplication of effort would result if each claim was separately tried. Id.
Here, even a liberal construction of the Practice Book would not allow these counterclaims to lie against this complaint. The complaint, sounding in defamation, raises factual and legal issues limited in scope and having little or no bearing on the business practices of the plaintiff. The counterclaim, on the other hand, raises complex and far reaching factual and legal issues regarding the business and competitive practices of the plaintiff. There would be little to no duplication of effort or wasting of judicial resources were these actions to be tried separately.
As was the case in Westport News, "[a]lthough the parties are locked in competition . . . the incidents giving rise to the complaint and counterclaim are isolated in time and nature. Consequently, the CT Page 12005-ct transactions in question could not logically be a part of an ongoing transaction although they may be part of an ongoing battle." Westport News, Inc. v. Minuteman Press, Inc., 1996 WL 737526 at 2.
The motion to strike the counterclaim (#104) is GRANTED. CT Page 12005-cu