Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in Connecticut

What Is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim?

Background

“Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to state a claim is a valid ground for dismissal. Under Connecticut practice, however, it is not. ‘A motion to dismiss . . . is available only to raise the question whether, on the face of the record, the court lacks jurisdiction.’” (Flanagan v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (1999) 54 Conn. App. 89, 94 n.5 quoting Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. (1954) 141 Conn. 646, 648.)

A motion to strike is the proper procedural vehicle to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. (Practice Book § 10-39.) The trial court's dismissal of ... counts for failure to state a claim would be procedurally improper. (Flanagan, supra, 54 Conn. App. at 94 n.5.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A motion to dismiss ‘shall always be filed with a supporting memorandum of law and, where appropriate, with supporting affidavits as to facts not apparent in the record ... If an adverse party objects to this motion he or she shall ... file ... a memorandum of law and, where appropriate, supporting affidavits as to facts not apparent on the record.’” Anderson v. Anderson, FA186077828S, at *1 [Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 8, 2019] quoting Practice Book § 25-13.)

“There is a significant difference between asserting that a plaintiff cannot state a cause of action and asserting that a plaintiff has not stated a cause of action, and therein lies the distinction between the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike....” (Sempey v. Stamford Hosp. (2018) 180 Conn. App. 605, 618.)

“A motion to dismiss does not test the sufficiency of a cause of action and should not be granted on other than jurisdictional grounds.... As [the Connecticut] Supreme Court has explained: A motion to dismiss is not a proper vehicle for an attack on the sufficiency of a pleading.... The distinction between the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike is not merely semantic.” (Id.)

“If a motion to dismiss is granted, the case is terminated, save for an appeal from that ruling.... The granting of a motion to strike, however, ordinarily is not a final judgment because our rules of practice afford a party a right to amend deficient pleadings.” (Id., citing Practice Book § 10–44.)

The Court’s Decision

“It certainly is true that ‘[where] the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that anything could be added to the complaint by way of amendment that would avoid the deficiencies in the original complaint, the granting of a motion to dismiss has been found harmless despite its procedural impropriety.’” (Sempey v. Stamford Hosp. (2018) 180 Conn. App. 605, 622-23 quoting and citing Egri v. Foisie (2004) 83 Conn. App. 243 at 250 n.10, 848 A.2d 1266, citing McCutcheon & Burr, Inc. v. Berman (1991) 218 Conn. 512, 528.)

There are essentially “two motions that are basic to our civil procedure, the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike. The motion to dismiss is governed by Practice Book §§ 10-30 through 10-34. Properly granted on jurisdictional grounds, it essentially asserts that, as a matter of law and fact, a plaintiff cannot state a cause of action that is properly before the court. (Egri v. Foisie (2004) 83 Conn. App. 243, 247 citing Third Taxing District v. Lyons (1994) 35 Conn. App. 795, 803; see Practice Book § 10-31.) By contrast, the motion to strike attacks the sufficiency of the pleadings. (Egri, id., citing Practice Book § 10-39; see also 1 E. Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure (3d Ed. 1997) § 72(a), pp. 216-17.)

Documents for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in Connecticut

Sort By

ANDERSON, FRANCIS #139042 v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION document preview

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

19 pages

DOCKET NO. TSR-CV23-5001593 FRANCIS ANDERSON #139042 : SUPERIOR COURT V. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND : AT ROCKVILLE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION : APRIL 19, 2024 RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS The respondent, Commissioner of Correction, …

Case Name ANDERSON, FRANCIS #139042 v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION