Auto Glass Express v. Metropolitan P & C (2011)

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT NO. 133

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 10–60, the plaintiff through pleadings dated September 14, 2011 has moved the court for permission to amend the complaint.   The defendant in a September 16, 2011 response has objected to the plaintiff's request.¹  The court heard oral argument on October 17, 2011.

In accordance with Connecticut Practice Book § 10–60 and General Statutes § 52–130 the court has the discretionary authority to grant a request to amend pleadings, Bauer v. Waste of Connecticut, Inc., 239 Conn. 515, 521 (1996);  Kelly v. Tomas, 66 Conn.App. 146, 173 (2001).

The court has examined the proposed amended complaint and considered the entire record of the proceeding.   Based upon its review, the court finds that the granting of the motion will not unduly delay the scheduled trial and is in the interest of justice.   Accordingly, the motion is granted.

So ordered,

BY THE COURT

PETER EMMETT WIESE, JUDGE

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff filed a September 28, 2011 reply to the objection..  FN1. The plaintiff filed a September 28, 2011 reply to the objection.

Wiese, Peter E., J.