Source: https://casetext.com/case/smikle-v-gallegos-no-mmx-cv09-600-1199-s-jan
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:20:13+00:00

Document:
In this case the plaintiff filed a three-count complaint. Such counts respectively allege negligence, common-law recklessness and statutory recklessness. Pursuant to the allegations of the third count, the plaintiff seeks double or treble damages pursuant to General Statutes § 14-295. The defendant Thomas Gallegos has moved to strike the second and third counts and the prayer for relief seeking double or treble damages pursuant to General Statutes § 14-295. The court has reviewed the complaint, the defendant's motion to strike and memorandum in support thereof, and the plaintiff's objection. The court denies the motion to strike. See Practice Book § 10-41 and Stuart v. Freiberg, 102 Conn.App. 857, 861, 927 A.2d 343 (2007). See also Craig v. Driscoll, 262 Conn. 312, 341-44, 813 A.2d 1003 (2003); Partelow v. Mullane, 2009 Ct.Sup. 16953, No. MMX CV09 500 6796 S, Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown (Bear, J., October 20, 2009); and Formato v. Campbell, No. MMX CV09 500 7791 S Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown (Bear, J., January 25, 2010). The plaintiff's complaint read as required in the context of a motion to strike uses language explicit enough to inform the court and counsel that separate claims of negligence, common-law recklessness and statutory recklessness based on General Statutes § 14-295 are being asserted by such plaintiff. Craig v. Driscoll, supra, 262 Conn. at 343.
Each motion to strike raising any of the claims of legal insufficiency enumerated in the preceding sections shall separately set forth each such claim of insufficiency and shall distinctly specify the reason or reasons for each such claimed insufficiency.
The defendant's motion does not comply with this section.

References: § 14
 § 14
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 v.