Sharon Kelly v. Hartford Hospital et al. (2013)

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (# 118)

I. DISCUSSION

The defendants, Hartford Hospital, Jefferson Radiology, P.C., Shameem Azizad, M.D., and Frederick Conard, III, M.D., move to strike the fourth count of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is legally insufficient inasmuch as the allegations do not support a finding of a joint venture.   Specifically, the defendants argue that the allegations do not support a finding that there was an agreement to carry on for profit, nor do the allegations claim that there was any intent for the defendants to be engaged in a joint venture.   In addition, the defendants argue that the plaintiff fails to allege (1) any facts that the defendants are contributing property, financing, skill, and/or knowledge to the alleged joint venture;  (2) any facts that specify their degree of effort or control between the defendants of the alleged joint venture, and (3) any facts regarding the sharing of profits and losses resulting from the alleged joint venture.

“A joint venture is a special combination of two or more persons who combine their property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge to see a profit jointly in a single business enterprise without any actual partnership or corporate designation ․ The relationship between contracting parties cannot amount to a joint venture unless the parties so intend.”  (Citation omitted.)   Electronic Ass'n, Inc. v. Automatic Equipment Development Corp., 185 Conn. 31, 35, 440 A.2d 249 (1981).

In the present case, the plaintiff, Sharon Kelly, alleges that the defendants had an agreement whereby the defendant Jefferson Radiology, and its employees would use the radiological facility of the defendant Hartford Hospital to conduct examinations and read, report, and offer opinions on imaging performed at the defendant Hartford Hospital.   The plaintiff does not allege that there was an agreement to seek profit between the defendants, nor does the plaintiff allege that the defendants combined their property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge in the alleged joint venture.   Further, the plaintiff does not allege that there was an intent between the parties to enter into such an agreement.   Accordingly, the plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of a joint venture between the defendants.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike the fourth count is granted.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

PETER EMMETT WIESE, JUDGE

Wiese, Peter E., J.