NNH-CV-23-6132261-S
`
`
`
`JOANNA ROMBERG, Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`JESSICA HALPRIN, and SWANKEY LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`
`) SUPERIOR COURT
`)
`J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
`)
`
`)
`) AT NEW HAVEN
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`JUNE 1, 2023
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO REVISE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-35 et seq., the Defendants, Jessica
`
`Halprin (“Halprin”) and Swankey LLC (“Swankey”), hereby request that the Plaintiff, Joanna
`
`Romberg (“Plaintiff”) revise her Complaint as follows:
`
`FIRST REQUESTED REVISION
`
`Removal of the Counts that allege causes of action against Swankey for dissolution and
`
`unjust enrichment, as Swankey LLC was dissolved on March 16, 2023. The dissolution of
`
`Swankey was filed with the Connecticut Secretary of State’s Office, prior to the Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint, which was filed with this Court on April 4, 2023.
`
`PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT TO BE REVISED
`
`The Second Count (Dissolution) and Fourth Count (Unjust Enrichment).
`
`GROUNDS FOR REQUESTED REVISION
`
`Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-35(2), a Defendant may require the
`
`deletion of any unnecessary, repetitious, scandalous, impertinent, immaterial, or otherwise
`
`improper allegations in an adverse party's pleading. Carhuff v. Gezurian, Docket No.
`
`CV074006847S, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2959 at *5 (Super. Nov. 6, 2007, Shaban, J.) (stating
`
`that "[w]henever a party desires to obtain . . . the deletion of any unnecessary, repetitious,
`
`scandalous, impertinent, immaterial, or otherwise improper allegations in an adverse party's
`
`pleading . . . the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party's pleading may file a
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOANNA ROMBERG, Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`JESSICA HALPRIN, and SWANKEY LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`
`) SUPERIOR COURT
`)
`J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
`)
`
`)
`) AT NEW HAVEN
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`JUNE 1, 2023
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO REVISE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-35 et seq., the Defendants, Jessica
`
`Halprin (“Halprin”) and Swankey LLC (“Swankey”), hereby request that the Plaintiff, Joanna
`
`Romberg (“Plaintiff”) revise her Complaint as follows:
`
`FIRST REQUESTED REVISION
`
`Removal of the Counts that allege causes of action against Swankey for dissolution and
`
`unjust enrichment, as Swankey LLC was dissolved on March 16, 2023. The dissolution of
`
`Swankey was filed with the Connecticut Secretary of State’s Office, prior to the Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint, which was filed with this Court on April 4, 2023.
`
`PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT TO BE REVISED
`
`The Second Count (Dissolution) and Fourth Count (Unjust Enrichment).
`
`GROUNDS FOR REQUESTED REVISION
`
`Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-35(2), a Defendant may require the
`
`deletion of any unnecessary, repetitious, scandalous, impertinent, immaterial, or otherwise
`
`improper allegations in an adverse party's pleading. Carhuff v. Gezurian, Docket No.
`
`CV074006847S, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2959 at *5 (Super. Nov. 6, 2007, Shaban, J.) (stating
`
`that "[w]henever a party desires to obtain . . . the deletion of any unnecessary, repetitious,
`
`scandalous, impertinent, immaterial, or otherwise improper allegations in an adverse party's
`
`pleading . . . the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party's pleading may file a
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`timely request to revise"). Here, the allegations requesting dissolution of Swankey in the Second
`
`Count of Plaintiff’s Complaint and unjust enrichment in the Fourth Count are moot, rendering the
`
`counts unnecessary, immaterial and improper. Consequently, Plaintiff should be ordered to revise
`
`her Complaint. PCUW, LLC v. Constanti, Docket No. HHBCV126014751S, 2012 Conn. Super.
`
`LEXIS 2109 at *4-5 (Super. Aug. 15, 2012, Wiese J.). See Rowe v. Godou, 209 Conn. 273, 279,
`
`550 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1988) (holding that, rather than a motion to dismiss, the proper way to cure
`
`any confusion [regarding the complaint] is to file a [request] to revise).
`
`
`
`As presently drafted, Defendants face allegations in the Second and Fourth Count of
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint, which are moot. Consequently, Defendants request that Plaintiff revise her
`
`Complaint to remove the Second Count and the Fourth Count as moot.
`
`OBJECTION/RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND REQUESTED REVISION
`
`Separate the Counts that allege causes of action against all Defendants, or more than one
`
`Defendant, into separate Counts and provide whether such causes of action are individual or
`
`derivative in nature, with respect to the Plaintiff.
`
`PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT TO BE REVISED
`
`
`
`The First Count (Right to Information) and the Third Count (Breach of Fiduciary Duty).
`
`GROUNDS FOR REQUESTED REVISION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-35(3), a Defendant may require,
`
`and indeed is required, to ask that the plaintiff separate causes of action which may be united in
`
`one complaint when they are improperly combined in one count. “When a single count of a
`
`complaint combines separate causes of action against multiple defendants, the proper way to cure
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`any confusion in that regard is to file a [request] to revise.” Kelsey v. Cowern, Docket No.
`
`CV020470620, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3489 at *17-18 (Super. Dec. 8, 2005, Silbert, J.); see
`
`also, Deary v. Raheb, Docket No. X07CV 990072055S, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 813 at *1-2
`
`(Super. Mar. 24, 2000, Bishop, J.) (stating “separate causes of action . . . should be reformulated
`
`into separate counts, giving the defendants an opportunity to respond separately to each of them”);
`
`Rowe v. Godou, 209 Conn. 273, 279, 550 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1988) (finding that plaintiff’s
`
`complaint against town employee and town confusing because it combined in a single count
`
`separate causes of action against the individual defendant and the municipality; proper way to cure
`
`any confusion in that regard is to file a motion to revise).
`
`Such revision is necessary to allow for the filing of a future pleading by one or more of the
`
`defendants. Id.; see, e.g., Webster v. Pequot Mystic Hotel, Docket No. 556799, 2002 Conn. Super.
`
`LEXIS 124 at *15 (Super. Jan 9, 2002, Hurley, J. Trial Ref.) (denying motion to strike a count
`
`against multiple defendants, citing Rowe and collecting cases in support of holding that a request
`
`to revise should have been filed first). See also, Estate of Hodgate v. Ferraro, Docket No. CV-05-
`
`4001779, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2980 at *1-2 (Super. Nov. 10, 2005, Gordon, J.) (same); JFS
`
`Landscaping, LLC v. General Motors, LLC, Docket No. CV10-6013055S, 2012 Conn. Super.
`
`LEXIS 2282 at *7-8 (Super. Sept. 10, 2012, Richards, J.) (same, CUTPA claim). Thus, the revision
`
`requested here is appropriate. See e.g., Deary v. Raheb, Docket No. x-07-CV-990072055S, 2000
`
`Conn. Super. LEXIS 813 at *1-2 (Super. Mar. 27, 2000, Bishop, J.) (granting such a request to
`
`revise). See also, Genna v. Captain’s Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., Docket No. CV-11-
`
`6019426S, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 682 at *5 (Super. Mar. 12, 2012, Gilardi, J. Trial Ref.)
`
`(same).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`As presently drafted, Defendants face allegations against both of them in the First Count
`
`and the Third Count. Defendants request that the Plaintiff separate the Counts into separate
`
`Counts, specifically identify which Counts are alleged against which Defendant, and provide
`
`whether such causes of action are individual or derivative in nature with respect to the Plaintiff,
`
`thereby giving Defendants an opportunity to respond separately.1
`
`OBJECTION/RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE DEFENDANTS, JESSICA
`HALPRIN, and SWANKEY, LLC
`
` By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______/s/ 438630____________________
`Shawn P. Dontigney, Esq.
`Fournier Legal Services
`64 Thompson Street, Suite A101
`East Haven, CT 06513
`Juris No.: 443793
`Tel: 860-670-3535
`sdontigney@jeflegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 If the Counts are not revised, each individual defendant is severely prejudiced because the majority rule in
`Connecticut is that “Connecticut procedure does not allow entry of summary judgment on one part or allegation of a
`cause of action when the ruling will not dispose of an entire claim, and therefore, will not allow entry of judgment on
`that claim.” Bridgeport Harbor Place, I, LLC, 2007 WL 3121672, at *3 (Stevens, J.) (citing Practice Book § 17-51)
`(denying defendants motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiff’s demand for lost profits because entry of
`summary judgment on the lost profits issue would not fully dispose of the cause of action or claim seeking various
`forms of damages). “[S]ummary judgment is unavailable as to particular allegations in a count when an adjudication
`does not dispose of an entire cause of action.” Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`
`I certify that a copy of the above was or will immediately be delivered on June 1, 2023 to
`
`all counsel and self-represented parties of record.
`
`
`Jeffrey Hellman, Esq.
`Law Offices of Jeffrey Hellman, LLC
`195 Church Street – 10th Floor
`New Haven, CT 06510
`jeff@hellmanlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ 438630
`
`Shawn P. Dontigney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
