Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Charles J. Ford v. Auto–Autotote Enterprises, Inc. a Division of Special Revenue et al.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT AUTO–AUTOTOTE'S MOTION TO DISMISS (# 102)
Plaintiff brought this action by complaint dated September 14, 2012 against defendant Auto–Autotote Enterprises, Inc., a Division of Special Revenue, and numerous other state defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss dated October 25, 2012 and the parties presented oral argument before the court on November 26, 2012.
“A motion to dismiss ․ properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court.” Kozlowski v. Commissioner of Transportation, 274 Conn. 497, 501 (2005). In attempting to evaluate defendants' argument that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action over which the court has jurisdiction, the court must first review the allegations contained in plaintiff's Complaint, “construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.” Cogswell v. American Transit Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 505, 516 (2007). In this case, however, the court finds itself unable to discern the meaning of plaintiff's Complaint, even when giving the plaintiff, who is representing himself, every conceivable benefit of the doubt. As a result, the court finds itself unable to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this matter.
The court's unsuccessful attempts to discern the meaning of the Complaint in an effort to determine if it has jurisdiction over this matter has, however, led it to the unequivocal conclusion that the Complaint, in its entirety, fails to state a claim upon relief may granted, which would render it susceptible to a motion to strike. Bernhard–Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican, 286 Conn. 548, 552–53 (2008). In view of the court's inherent authority to treat a motion to dismiss as a motion to strike, Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186, 226 (2010), the court hereby strikes plaintiff's entire complaint.
James W. Abrams, Judge
Abrams, James W., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CV125015709
Decided: November 29, 2012
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)