The plaintiff submits that the defendant`s second charge should be removed on the ground that the defendant did not qualify for a legally sufficient claim for violation of the CUTA. In particular, the applicant submits that the defendant did not claim that it had acted in the course of business and that it did not allege conduct which satisfied the criteria necessary to trigger the applicability of the CUTA. The respondent responds that the CUTA is a recourse law and must be interpreted generously as covering the conduct alleged in the counterclaim that constitutes an abuse of process. “A counterclaim is a plea in favour of the defendant against the plaintiff in respect of which the defendant could have obtained positive relief if it had sued the plaintiff in a separate action. A motion for removal examines the legal sufficiency of a cause of action and may be properly used to challenge the sufficiency of a counterclaim. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) JP Morgan Chase Bank, Fiduciary vs. Rodrigues, 109 Conn.App. 125, 131, 952 A.2d 56 (2008). ”It is of fundamental importance that, in order to establish the sufficiency of a [procedural act] challenged by a [requesting party`s] strike motion, all facts well presented and facts necessarily implicit in the allegations be considered admissible.
Procedural acts must be interpreted broadly and realistically, and not narrowly and technically. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 295 Conn. 240, 252-53, 990 A.2d 293 (2010). ”The strike request shall be granted if the [memorial] is based on mere legal findings which are not supported by the alleged facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003). In Wes-Garde Components Group, the Court finally ruled: “In light of these [Supreme Court] cases, and in particular given the apparent intention of this Supreme Court, as expressed therein, to limit the broad scope of CUTA in order to uphold the strong public policy that ensures that litigants receive loyal and vigorous support in pursuing their legal claims before the courts. of their counsel, This court concluded that claims based on the alleged initiation of unfounded litigation cannot be brought until the underlying dispute in which the alleged misconduct occurred has been resolved favorably for CUPA`s claimant.
The filing of such a CUTA claim as a counterclaim in the same dispute, the prosecution of which is allegedly unfounded, undermines the ability of defence counsel to communicate effectively with his client because he exposes his communications to disclosure because of the relevance of those communications. for any bona fide defence based on the advice of a lawyer that the client may make. Id., 677. “The purpose of a motion for delisting is to challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint in order to assert a claim to which relief may be granted. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003). ”A strike request calls into question the legal sufficiency of a procedural act and therefore does not require a finding of fact by the court of first instance.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Batte-Holmgren v Commissioner for Public Health, 281 Conn. 277, 294, 914 A.2d 996 (2007).
”It is of fundamental importance that, in order to establish the sufficiency of a claim challenged by a respondent`s motion for expungement, all facts well presented and facts necessarily implied by the allegations be considered admissible.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310, 318, 907 A.2d 1188 (2006). ”A strike motion admits all the facts that are well presented; It does not permit any conclusion of law or the truthfulness or accuracy of the opinions expressed in the pleadings. (emphasis in original; Internal quotation marks omitted.) Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp., 240 Coun. 576, 588, 693 A.2d 293 (1997). In the present case, after a thorough examination of the relevant case-law, the Court concludes that the defendant has not alleged any conduct capable of triggering a breach of the ACTUP and that, therefore, the second count of the counterclaim is legally inadequate.
