Falcon v. U-Haul Co.

Full title: FALCON v. U-HAUL CO

Court: Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford

Date published: Apr 9, 1997

1997 Ct. Sup. 2418 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997)

Opinion

No. CV96-0559724

April 9, 1997.

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON REQUEST TO AMEND ANSWER

HENNESSEY, J.

The defendants have moved to amend their answer to add a counterclaim of vexatious litigation.

The court does not find persuasive the concerns for judicial economy and avoidance of multiple suits relied upon by the defendants when they cite Sonitrol Security Systems v. Dept. of Administrative Services, 1992 Ct. Sup. 10026, ___ CSCR ___, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, November 10, 1992, as authority for the proposition that the counterclaim of vexatious litigation should be allowed.

A claim that the instant case constitutes vexatious litigation is premature. Such a claim is pled, if pled at all as a separate action when the instant case is concluded.

The motion to amend the answer (#112) is denied.

HENNESSEY, J.

HENNESSEY, J.