DOCKET NO: FSTCV186036354S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`ORDER 433230
`
`BYRD, JESSICA
` V.
`ECP INCORPORATED Et Al
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD
` AT STAMFORD
`
`9/17/2018
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDER REGARDING:
`08/27/2018 119.00 OBJECTION TO REQUEST TO REVISE
`
`The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
`
`ORDER:
`
`1. This court disagrees with the claimed contention that a motion to strike cannot be directed to one of
`multiple defendants set forth in a single count. This court previously has observed that there is authority
`to strike a claim against one of many defendants set forth in a single count: “Thus, although Rowe v.
`Godou, 209 Conn. 273, 279, 550 A.2d 1073 (1988), is sometimes cited for the proposition that a motion
`to strike can only be used to attack the sufficiency of an entire count, the actual holding was that it had
`been improper to strike an entire count when the relevant count included legally-sufficient allegations as
`to at least some of the defendants. As was recognized in footnote 9 of that decision, despite the denial of
`a request to revise (presumably asking to have the complaint separated into counts directed to each of
`the defendants), the individual defendant 'still had the opportunity to move to strike the allegations of the
`complaint insofar as they purported to state a cause of action against it.'" Krayeski v. Greenwich
`Hospital, 112415 CTSUP, J.D. Stamford, FSTCV146022177S (November 24, 2015) (available on
`Judicial website at http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?
`DocumentNo=9730400) – decision subsequently vacated on other grounds.
`
`Therefore, the court generally applies a practical approach – the need for specificity of allegations versus
`unwieldiness. In this instance, the court believes that paragraph 28 exemplifies the need for individual
`counts in that it includes all defendants – including an individual described as a distributor – as
`responsible for improper design, manufacture, etc.
`
`Therefore, the objection is overruled.
`
`2. sustained
`
`Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order.
`
`433230
`
`Judge: KENNETH B POVODATOR
`Processed by: Eileen Condron
`
`FSTCV186036354S 9/17/2018
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`