Natale Ruisi v. Timothy O'Sullivan, Executive Director, The Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (103.00)

This case comes to this court where the defendant has moved to strike the plaintiff's complaint.  Practice Book § 10-39 sets forth the grounds for striking a complaint.   Section 1 and Section 2 of that section substantially provide that, when a party wishes to contest the legal sufficiency of the allegations of a complaint, or the legal sufficiency for any prayer for relief, a motion to strike may be filed.  Section 3, 4 and 5 of Section 10-39 do not address the issues contained here.

It is clear that a motion to strike is not the proper vehicle for elimination of irrelevant, immaterial or otherwise, improper allegations.

The standard for review by this court is that for the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.   The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff.   The role of the trial court in ruling on a motion to strike is to examine the complaint, construed in favor of the plaintiff, to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient cause of action.   In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to facts alleged in the complaint.   If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied.   If a motion to strike is directed to the entire complaint, the motion must fail if any of the plaintiff's claims are legally sufficient.

In this case, the plaintiff who is a self-represented person, has sued Timothy O'Sullivan and the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the State of New York claiming they did not properly supervise, oversee, or properly reimburse the plaintiff for improper actions taken by the plaintiffs' attorneys.   All of these actions caused the plaintiff claimed substantial monetary losses.   The judicial philosophy has evolved to allow self-represented litigants some leeway on their pleadings.

This court taking into consideration that judicial philosophy, and the court's rules and interpretations of Practice Book § 10-39, the motion to strike, causes this court to deny the motion to strike.   All of the allegations in the motion to strike can be raised in the answer and special defenses, and a judge or jury would have the opportunity to find the law and the facts as are necessary.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR., J.T.R.

Karazin, Edward R., J.T.R.