707 Blue Hills, LLC v. Kelly

Citations

• 234 Conn. App. 865

Syllabus

The plaintiff, a former client of the defendant attorneys K and G, and their law firm L Co., appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defendants' motion to strike certain counts of the complaint, including, inter alia, legal malpractice and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (§ 42-110a et seq.), as legally insufficient. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly granted the defendants' motion to strike without affording it the opportunity to present oral argument. Held: This court concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider the portion of the appeal that challenged the plaintiff's stricken CUTPA claims against K and L Co., even though two counts of the complaint remained pending against those defendants, as the plaintiff relied on the same factual and legal issues in the stricken claim against G and the stricken CUTPA claims against K and L Co., and, therefore, the sufficiency of the stricken CUTPA claims against K and L Co. and the sufficiency of the stricken claim against G were inextricably intertwined. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendants' motion to strike without affording the plaintiff an opportunity for oral argument, as the plaintiff did not timely request oral argument pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 11-18 (a) (2)) and did not pursue a timely objection to the motion to strike pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 10-40). Argued March 26—officially released September 9, 2025