Tucker v. Ginsberg, No. 30 80 18 (Jun. 26, 1991)
Opinion of the Court
A motion to strike contests the legal sufficiency of the CT Page 5391 allegations of a pleading, including an answer to a complaint or any special defense contained therein. Conn. Practice Bk. 152 (rev'd to 1978, as updated to October 1, 1990). Plaintiff's motion to strike attacks the Attorney General's authority to represent state employees. This ground is not an attack on the legal sufficiency of the Answer or Special Defenses and therefore is not properly the subject of a motion to strike.
In addition, the plaintiff moves to strike all Answers and Special Defenses of the defendants. The plaintiff does not object to any specific Answer or Special Defense. Where the motion to strike attacks the pleading as a whole, the motion fails if any part of the attacked pleading is viable. Kovacs v. Kasper,
Therefore, for the above reasons, the plaintiff's motion to strike is hereby denied.
STENGEL, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.