Opinion
No. 412740
October 6, 2004
ORDERS ON MOTION FOR ARTICULATION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
The plaintiff has requested articulation of the order of the court denying the defendant's motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was denied because the defendant did not sustain its burden of proving to the court that the plaintiff transacted business in this state, within the meaning of General Statutes § 33-920, and that the license agreement did not come within the ambit of the safe harbor provisions of General Statutes § 33-920(b)(6), (11), (c). "Whether or not a foreign corporation is transacting business in this state under 33-396 must be determined on the complete factual picture presented in each case." Eljam Mason Supply, Inc. v. Donnelly Brick Co., 152 Conn. 483, 485, 208 A.2d 544 (1965); see also Peters Production, Inc. v. Dawson, 182 Conn. 526, 529, 438 A.2d 747 (1980) ("whether a foreign corporation is transacting business so as to require a certificate of authority is a question which must be resolved by examining the complete factual circumstances of each case.").
The plaintiff has now filed a motion to strike the defendant's third special defense, which purports to assert the defense of unclean hands. The plaintiff has advanced two grounds for its motion. First, it argues that the defense fails to allege facts supporting its legal conclusion. The court disagrees based on a plain reading of the defense. Moreover, if the plaintiff desired a fuller factual statement of the defense, it should have filed a request to revise. Second, the plaintiff contends that the defense is improper because of the court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss. As explained supra, the motion to dismiss was denied because the defendant did not sustain its burden of proof on its motion to dismiss. This does not prevent the defendant from presenting "the complete factual picture"; Eljam Mason Supply, Inc. v. Donnelly Brick Co., supra, 152 Conn. 485; at trial or on a motion for summary judgment and more adequately briefing the issue of the interstate licensing of software.
The motion to strike is denied.
By the Court
Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court