BUD'S LOCK KEY SERVICE, INC. v. SNETCO, No. CV 05 4003248 S (Oct. 2, 2006)

GERARD F. ESPOSITO, JUDGE.

On February 28, 2006, the plaintiff Bud's Lock Key Service, Inc., filed a second amended four-count complaint (#117), alleging breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) against the defendants, Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation and SNET Information Services (defendants). On March 14, 2006, the defendants filed their amended answer to the second amended complaint (#118), which includes one special defense, and two counterclaims. On April 12, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike (#119) the defendants' counterclaims, stating that those counterclaims do not arise out of the same transaction as the plaintiff's complaint, as required by the Connecticut Practice Book.

"The transaction test is one of practicality, and the trial court's determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion." Wallingford v. Glen Valley Associates, Inc., 190 Conn. 158, 161, 459 A.2d 525 (1983). "Where the underlying purposes of [the Practice Book,] to wit, judicial economy, avoidance of multiplicity of litigation, and avoidance of piecemeal disposition of what is essentially one action, are thwarted rather than served by the filing of a [counterclaim], the [counterclaim] may be properly expunged." Id. "Whether those purposes are furthered by permitting a counterclaim is a matter of the court's discretion." Conservation Commission v. Price, 191 Conn. 414, 433, 479 A.2d 187 (1987); Ceci Brothers, Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corporation, 81 Conn.App. 419, 423, n. 3, 840 A.2d 578, cert. denied, CT Page 17854 268 Conn. 922, 846 A.2d 881 (2004).

In this case, the plaintiff alleges that it negotiated with the defendants to place advertisements in the defendants' 2005 yellow pages telephone directory. The plaintiff further alleges that at the time of such negotiations, the plaintiff's account with the defendants was in arrears, stemming from the plaintiff's failure to timely pay for advertising in the defendants' 2004 yellow pages telephone directory, and that the plaintiff had purchased advertising space from the defendants "for a number of years."

The defendants' first counterclaim is for breach of an earlier contract. The defendants allege that the plaintiff ordered advertising pursuant to written contracts signed in 2003, and that the defendants published that advertising and were not paid for it, to the amount of $8,112.47, which includes interest, attorney fees, and other collection costs. The defendants' second counterclaim is for unjust enrichment. The defendants argue that the value of the work done for the plaintiff was valuable and that the lack of payment worked to the defendants' detriment.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' counterclaims are in regards to separate transactions. However, it seems that the transactions are linked by an ongoing business relationship between the parties. The fact that the plaintiff acknowledges that his account was in arrears with the defendants from a prior contract indicates that such prior purchases of advertising space from the defendant will be an issue in litigation. It is likely that there is a factual overlap between the contracts at issue in the plaintiff's complaint and the contract at issue in the defendants' counterclaims. It would likely serve to avoid multiplicity of litigation to allow the defendants' counterclaims to be asserted here. Thus, it is ordered that the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' counterclaims is denied. CT Page 17855