From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chaul-Snow v. Univ. of Connecticut

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
Sep 30, 2004
2004 Ct. Sup. 14960 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

Opinion

No. CV 03-0083056 S

September 30, 2004


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (#103)


This is an action brought pursuant to General Statutes § 46a-100 in which the Plaintiff claims that she was the subject of pregnancy and sex discrimination by the University of Connecticut.

General Statutes § 46a-100 provides: "Any person who has timely filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in accordance with section 46a-82 and who has obtained a release from the commission in accordance with section 46a-83a or 46a-101, may also bring an action in the superior court for the judicial district in which the discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred or in which the respondent transacts business, except any action involving a state agency or official may be brought in the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford."

The Defendant has filed a motion to strike in which it states, in its entirety: "Pursuant to Section 10-39 of the Practice Book, the Defendant University of Connecticut hereby moves to strike the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. Moreover, because the plaintiff has included allegations of intentional and/or reckless conduct in paragraph 28 of the single-count complaint for the purpose of supporting the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, the Defendant also moves to strike this portion of the complaint."

In her memorandum in opposition to the motion to strike, the Plaintiff claims, first, that the motion must be denied because the Defendant has failed to provide any reasons in its motion as to why it should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with the Appellate Court's decision in Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, 64 Conn.App. 9 (2001), the motion is fatally defective. Second, the Plaintiff claims that even if the court considers the Defendant's motion, it should be denied because the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act does allow punitive damages against the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff's first claim is dispositive of the Motion to Strike. In Barasso the court stated: "Practice Book § 10-41 requires that a motion to strike raising a claim of insufficiency `shall distinctly specify the reason or reasons for each such claimed insufficiency.' Motions to strike that do not specify the grounds of insufficiency are `fatally defective' and, absent a waiver by the party opposing the motion, should not be granted. CT Page 14961 Lubas v. McCusker, 153 Conn. 250, 253, 216 A.2d 289 (1965); see Bouchard v. People's Bank, 219 Conn. 465, 468 n. 4, 594 A.2d 1 (1991). Our Supreme Court has stated `that a motion to strike that does not specify the grounds of insufficiency is fatally defective . . . and that 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.' (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., 200 Conn. 676, 683 n. 5, 513 A.2d 66 (1986); King v. Board of Education, 195 Conn. 90, 94 n. 4, 486 A.2d 1111 (1985); see Bouchard v. People's Bank, supra, 468 n. 4." Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, 64 Conn.App. 9, 13-14 (2001) (footnote omitted).

Similar to the motion to strike in Barasso, the motion here is devoid of any specificity as to the grounds of insufficiency in the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages and her allegations of intentional and/or reckless conduct. Although Practice Book § 10-41 is not jurisdictional, because the Plaintiff has properly raised this issue the court must consider it. See, Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., 200 Conn. 676, 685 n. 5 (1986).

The Motion to Strike here does not state any reason why the Plaintiff's claims are insufficient. Therefore it does not comply with the requirements of Practice Book § 10-41 that "[e]ach motion to strike raising any of the claims of legal insufficiency enumerated in the preceding sections shall separately set forth each such claim of insufficiency and shall distinctly specify the reason or reasons for each such claimed insufficiency." Since the Motion to Strike is fatally defective it must be denied.

Jane S. Scholl, J.


Summaries of

Chaul-Snow v. Univ. of Connecticut

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
Sep 30, 2004
2004 Ct. Sup. 14960 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)
Case details for

Chaul-Snow v. Univ. of Connecticut

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTINE CHAUL-SNOW v. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville

Date published: Sep 30, 2004

Citations

2004 Ct. Sup. 14960 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)
38 CLR 48