PPA v. Anna Colon et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Facts and Procedural History

In the present action, the minor plaintiff, Brandon Randall, was allegedly bitten by a dog on property located at 141 County Street in New Haven, Connecticut.   On October 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed suit against several defendants including the owner of the dog, owners of the property and lessors and lessees of the property.   Patricia Duenkel, the defendant for the purposes of this decision, filed a motion to strike the counts against her on June 25, 2010.   The plaintiffs, Brandon Randall and his father, Broderick Randall, filed their objection and memorandum in opposition on August 26, 2010.

Discussion

“The exclusive remedy for misjoinder of parties is by motion to strike.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Hilton v. New Haven, 233 Conn. 701, 723 n.23, 661 A.2d 973 (1995);  see also Practice Book § 11-3.  “Where [however] the legal grounds for ․ a motion [to strike] are dependent upon underlying facts not alleged in the plaintiff's pleadings, the defendant must await the evidence which may be adduced at trial, and the motion should be denied.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M Services, Inc., 268 Conn. 283, 293, 842 A.2d 1124 (2004).  “It is well established that a motion to strike must be considered within the confines of the pleadings and not external documents ․ We are limited ․ to a consideration of the facts alleged in the complaint.   A ‘speaking’ motion to strike (one imparting facts outside the pleadings) will not be granted.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Zirinsky v. Zirinsky, 87 Conn.App. 257, 268-69 n.9, 865 A.2d 488, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 916, 871 A.2d 372 (2005);  see also Rowe v. Godou, 209 Conn. 273, 278, 550 A.2d 1073 (1988).

The defendant argues that the court should strike the counts against her because she was not the owner of the property where the dog bite occurred on September 16, 2007.   She argues that the real property known as 141 County Street, New Haven, passed to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company on July 30, 2007.   In support of her argument, the defendant attaches a Certificate of Foreclosure, dated July 30, 2007.   The court denies the defendant's motion because its review is limited to the allegations contained in the complaint.   In a motion to strike, the court cannot consider evidence beyond the plaintiff's complaint to remove the defendant from this suit.

Conclusion

For all of the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to strike is hereby denied.

Woods, J.

Judge Of The Superior Court

Woods, Glenn A., J.