`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`ORDER 410631
`
`CINOTTI, LUCIA
` V.
`SOVRAN ACOUISITION LIMITED
`PARTNERSHIP DBA UNCLE B Et Al
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA/
`MILFORD
` AT MILFORD
`
`6/1/2018
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDER REGARDING:
`05/18/2018 103.00 OBJECTION TO REQUEST TO REVISE
`
`The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
`
`ORDER:
`
`RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS TO REVISE
`THE COMPLAINT
`
`The plaintiff's objections to the defendant's first and second requests to revise are SUSTAINED.
`
`The plaintiff's objection to the defendant's third request to revise is:
`
`OVERRULED to the following extent. The plaintiff is required to present, and is ordered to present, its
`factual allegations that rely on a statute by pleading and identifying the statute at issue. P.B.§ 10-3.
`
`SUSTAINED to the extent that defendant's request is based on the claim that more facts should be
`pleaded in order to assert a sufficient claim. Whether sufficient facts have been pleaded to state a legally
`sufficient claim raises an issue better addressed through a motion to strike rather than a request to revise.
`See generally, Melfi v. Danbury, 70 Conn. App. 679, 684, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 922 (2002) ("request
`to revise may not ordinarily be used to substantively challenge a pleading.")
`
`410631
`
`Judge: BARRY STEVENS
`
`AANCV186026817S 6/1/2018
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
