`
`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
`
`