From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waldo v. R.H.M. Properties, LLC

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London
Mar 28, 2002
2002 Ct. Sup. 3802 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)

Opinion

No. 557367

March 28, 2002 CT Page 3803


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE (#133)


The defendant RHM Properties LLC (RHM) filed an answer, special defenses and counterclaim on August 30, 2001. The plaintiff, Russell W. Waldo, filed a motion to strike RHM's special defenses and counterclaim on October 4, 2001. On February 19, 2002, the plaintiff filed a reply to the RHM's special defenses and an answer to RHM's counterclaim.

"The filing of the reply operated as a withdrawal of the [motion to strike] previously interposed by the same party. . . ." Mangusi v. Vigiliotti, 104 Conn. 291, 294, 132 A. 464 (1926). Similarly, by filing an answer to the counterclaim, the plaintiff waived the right to have the court determine the legal sufficiency of the counterclaim. Sachs v. Feinn, 121 Conn. 77, 80, 183 A. 384 (1936); Kwiechien v. Gordon, 33 Conn. Sup. 637, 638 n. 2, 365 A.2d 118 (1976); see also Practice Book §§ 10-6 and 10-7. For these reasons, no ruling is necessary on the plaintiff's motion to strike.

______________________________________ D. Michael Hurley, Judge Trial Referee


Summaries of

Waldo v. R.H.M. Properties, LLC

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London
Mar 28, 2002
2002 Ct. Sup. 3802 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)
Case details for

Waldo v. R.H.M. Properties, LLC

Case Details

Full title:RUSSELL W. WALDO v. R.H.M. PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London

Date published: Mar 28, 2002

Citations

2002 Ct. Sup. 3802 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)
31 CLR 657

Citing Cases

Ruiz v. State

The plaintiff cites to several cases in support of the proposition that, by filing their answer before their…