Preview
DOCKET NO. AAN-CV17-5012366-S : SUPERIOR COURT
JAMES E. BARBARA and : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
LINA T. BARBARA. : ANSONIA-MILFORD
v. : AT MILFORD
COLONIAL SURETY COMPANY : April 13, 2018
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST TO REVISE
The defendants, Colonial Surety Company (“Colonial”), pursuant to Practice Book §
1035, hereby requests that the plaintiffs, James E. Barbara and Lina T. Barbara (collectively
hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), revise their Complaint dated March 8, 2017 (“Complaint”), as follows:
FIRST REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Entire Complaint.
19 ‘OUO4 UM
B. Requested Revision:
teld €1 Yd¥ 102
v
Lufod Nohwguns
3410 SMUT OP
Revise the entire Complaint so that that the Complaint alleges separate counts for eacho
cause of action as required by Practice Book § 10-26, and sets forth Plaintiffs’ claims for relief
separately and after the count(s) containing Plaintiffs’ alleged causes of action, as required by
Practice Book § 10-20 and General Statutes § 52-91. C.
Reasons for the Requested Revision:
As alleged, the Complaint is organized into a “First Claim for Relief’; Complaint, p. 1-8;
a “Second Claim” Complaint, p.7-8; and a prayer for relief. Complaint, p. 8-9. The Complaint,
therefore, fails to comply with the requirements in Practice Book §§ 10-20 and 10-26 for the
1
S1/235555/0002/1493456v1 UY
03/20/18-HRT/SLmanner in which the allegations, causes of action, and claims for relief in a complaint are
required to be organized.
Practice Book § 10-35: “Whenever any party desires to obtain (4) any ... appropriate
correction in an adverse party's pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse
party's pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” An “essential purpose” of
pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River
Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A request to revise provides a procedural
remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where
the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd.
Practice Book § 10-20 provides:
The first pleading on the part of the plaintiff shall be known as the
complaint. It shall contain a concise statement of the facts
constituting the cause of action and, on a separate page of the
complaint, a demand for relief which shall be a statement of the
remedy or remedies sought. When money damages are sought in the
- demand for relief, the demand for relief shall-include the information
required by General Statutes § 52-91.
General Statutes § 52-91 provides in relevant part that:
When money damages are sought in the demand for relief, the
demand for relief shall set forth: (1) That the amount, legal interest
or property in demand is fifteen thousand dollars or more, exclusive
of interest and costs; or (2) that the amount, legal interest or property
in demand is two thousand five hundred dollars or more but is less
than fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs; or (3)
that the amount, legal interest or property in demand is less than two
thousand five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. In
addition, in a contract action in which only money damages are
sought and in which the amount, legal interest or property in demand
is less than fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs,
the demand for relief shall also set forth whether or not the remedy
sought is based upon an express or implied promise to pay a definite
sum.
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLPractice Book § 10-26 provides:
Where separate and distinct causes of action, as distinguished from
separate and distinct claims for relief founded on the same cause of
action or transaction, are joined, the statement of the second shall be
prefaced by the words Second Count, and so on for the others; and
the several paragraphs of each count shall be numbered separately
beginning in each count with the number one.
As alleged, the Complaint contains no separate counts, and is organized into a “claim for
relief” and a “second claim” followed by a prayer for relief in which Plaintiffs seek money
damages, which does not contain the information required by General Statutes § 52-91.
Furthermore, the Complaint appears purport to allege multiple, distinct, causes of action, none of
which are alleged in separate counts as required by Practice Book § 10-26. Within the
Complaint, Plaintiffs apparently purport to allege a cause of action for breach of the Indemnity
Agreement; Complaint { 23, 41, 46, 55, 56, 62; a cause of action for breach of the performance
bond; Complaint { { 42; a cause of action for bad faith breach of contract or breach of the
covenant of good faith; Complaint {| { 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 56, 62; and a cause of action for a
declaratory judgment. Complaint { {62 and Prayer for Relief { b. As result, the Complaint
contains no separate counts, yet purports to contain multiple separate and distinct causes of
action.
Plaintiffs must revise their complaint so that it sets forth a First Count, Second Count,
Third Count, etc., for each separate cause of action which Plaintiffs purport to allege, as required
by Practice Book § 10-26, followed by a separate prayer for relief which complies with Practice
Book § 10-20 and General Statutes§ 52-91. As alleged, the Complaint fails to comply with
Connecticut’s rules of practice and embodies a “slovenly” framing of the issues in dispute.
Colonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against
3
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1.
03/20/18-HRT/SLit. Accordingly, the Complaint must be revised as requested to properly frame the causes of
action and issues in dispute in this action, for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual
bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to
be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested.
D. Response:
This appears to be a matter of form over substance. However, plaintiffs will renumber the
allegations into a manner which complies with the pleading requirements if the Court desires.
SECOND REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Entire Complaint.
B. Requested Revision:
Revise the entire Complaint so that that the Complaint alleges a separate count for each
distinct cause of action which Plaintiffs purport to allege, including a separate count for each
cause of action for breach of each separate and distinct contract (e.g. the Indemnity Agreement
or the Bond), a separate count for each cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith in each separate and distinct contract and/or bad faith breach of such contract, and a
separate count for the cause of action for declaratory judgment. C. Reasons for the Requested
Revision:
The Complaint contains no separate counts, yet appears to improperly attempt to allege
multiple different causes of action for breaches of separate and distinct contracts, breaches of the
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLcovenant of good faith and/or bad faith breach of separate and distinct contracts, and a cause of
action for a declaratory judgment.
Practice Book § 10-35: “Whenever any party desires to obtain ... (3) separation of causes
of action which may be united in one complaint when they are improperly combined in one
count ... or (4) any other appropriate correction in an adverse party's pleading, the party desiring
any such amendment in an adverse party's pleading may file a timely request to revise that
pleading.” An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of
the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A
request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is
used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings
are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Id.
Practice Book § 10-26 provides:
Where separate and distinct causes of action, as distinguished from
separate and distinct claims for relief founded on the same cause of
action or transaction, are joined, the statement of the second shall be
prefaced by the words Second Count, and so on for the others; and
the several paragraphs of each count shall be numbered separately
beginning in each count with the number one.
Each separate and distinct contract “furnishes a different cause of action” for breach of the
same, which is separate and distinct from causes of action arising under other contracts with
independent obligations, such that a cause of action for breach of each “distinct contract” should
be alleged in a separate count from causes of action claiming breach of different contracts. Beizer
v Dictograph Products, Inc., 6 Conn. Cir. 28, 263 A.2d 93, 96-97 (1969). In a properly drawn
complaint, alleged claims for breach of multiple different contracts are not properly combined in
one count. Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, CV030404311, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1849
5
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SL*1 (Super. July 20, 2005, Doherty, J.). Accordingly, each claim for breach of a separate and
distinct contract constitutes a separate and distinct cause of action which must be pleaded in a
separate count.
Similarly, “[a] claim of a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a separate
cause of action.” Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc.,
HHDCVX04085023532S, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1409 at *26 (Super. May 11, 2010,
Shapiro, J.); Michel v. Bridgeport Hospital, CV116015195, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 538, *15
(Super. Mar. 7, 2011, Levin, J.). A single count which alleges both breach of a contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith, “combines two causes of action in one count.”
Cabrera v. American School for the Deaf, Docket No. HHDCV126035273S, 2013 Conn. Super.
LEXIS 447, at *3 (Super. Feb. 26, 2013, Schuman, J.). Accordingly, claims alleging breach of
the implied covenant of good faith or alleging bad faith breach of a contract, are separate and
distinct causes of action from other claims alleging breach of the contract which underlies the
bad faith/breach of good faith claims. Furthermore, a cause of action that the covenant of good
faith in one contract has been breached, must be alleged in a separate count from causes of action
alleging that the convent of good faith in other different contracts has been breached. RAB
Associates, LLC v. Bertch Cabinet Mfg., NNHCV106015934S, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1855,
at *13 (Super. July 30, 2014, Nazarra, J.) (overruling objection to request to revise requesting
that each cause of action for breach of good faith arising from a separate contract be pled in a
separate count because “it is evident that each contract can create a separate cause of action for
breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”).
$L/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLAdditionally, a claim seeking a declaratory judgment constitutes a separate cause of
action from other causes of action based on the same facts, events and transactions underlying
the claim for declaratory relief. A claim for a declaratory judgment is itself a separate cause of
action with its own particular pleading requirements which must be satisfied to sufficiently “state
a cause of action for declaratory judgment.” ABB Automation, Inc. v. Zaharna, 77 Conn. App.
260, 266-67 (2003) (examining whether allegations comply with Practice Book § 17-55 so as to
sufficiently state a cause of action for declaratory judgment.); Bombero v. Planning & Zoning
Commission, 40 Conn. App. 75, 85-86 (1996) (examining whether complaint alleges facts
sufficient to “state a cause of action for [declaratory] relief...”)
As alleged, the Complaint appears to purport to allege multiple, distinct, causes of action,
none of which are alleged in separate counts as required by Practice Book § 10-26. Within the
Complaint, Plaintiffs apparently purport to allege a cause of action for breach of the Indemnity
Agreement; Complaint { { 23, 41, 46, 55, 56, 62; a cause of action for breach of the performance
bond; Complaint { { 42; a cause of action for bad faith breach of contract or breach of the
covenant of good faith; Complaint { { 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 56, 62; and a cause of action for a
declaratory judgment. Complaint { { 62 and Prayer for Relief {[b. As result, the Complaint
contains no separate counts, yet purports to contain multiple separate and distinct causes of
action.
Plaintiffs must revise their complaint so that each separate cause of action is alleged in a
separate count, as required by Practice Book § 10-26. As alleged, the Complaint fails to comply
with Connecticut’s rules of practice and embodies a “slovenly” framing of the issues in dispute.
The Complaint must be revised as requested to properly frame the causes of action and issues in
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1.
03/20/18-HRT/SLdispute in this action, for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which
all Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a
responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested.
Dz. Response:
Objection. Plaintiffs find this request to be unclear and ambiguous. Plaintiff has already divided
the complaint into two separate causes of action, one for a declaratory judgment and the other
for damages for breaching the Indemnity Agreement and the performance bond. Is defense
counsel seeking a separate count to be plead for breach of contract of the Indemnity agreement
with a separate count plead for breach of contract of the performance bond? Is defense counsel
requesting we plead a separate count of the breach of the implied covenant of good faith for the
indemnity agreement with a separate count for pleading breach of the implied covenant of good
faith of the performance bond? Is defense counsel seeking a separate count for each specific
breach of the either the implied covenant of good faith or of the indemnity agreement? Plaintiffs
are unsure of what Colonial is seeking.
THIRD REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Complaint Paragraph 2 which alleges “On or about June 15, 2007, Phoenix executed a
subcontract ("Subcontract") to supply and install window wall, and other fenestration products
throughout the construction located at 150 Lafayette Street, New York, NY ("Project") a 26 story
hotel.”
B. Requested Revision:
$1/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLRevise Complaint Paragraph 2 to state the names of the parties, other than Phoenix
Contracting Group, Inc., to the Subcontract referred to in Paragraph 2. C.
Reasons for the Requested Revision:
Paragraph 2 alleges that Phoenix entered into a Subcontract, yet fails to disclose the other
parties to that Subcontract. Accordingly, Paragraph 2 falls short of providing the basic
information which comprises the material facts upon which Plaintiffs’ causes of action are based.
Practice Book § 10-35: “Whenever any party desires to obtain (1) a more complete or
particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party's pleading, or (2) the deletion of any
unnecessary, repetitious, scandalous, impertinent, immaterial or otherwise improper allegations
in an adverse party's pleading, or (3) separation of causes of action which may be united in one
complaint when they are improperly combined in one count, or the separation of two or more
grounds of defense improperly combined in one defense, or (4) any other appropriate correction
in an adverse party's pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party's
pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” An “essential purpose” of pleading is
“to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v.
Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A request to revise provides a procedural remedy to
correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts
and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. Indeed, “the
proper way to cure any confusion . . . [about what is being pleaded] is to file a motion to revise . .
-.” Rowe v. Godou, 209 Conn. 273, 279 (1988). The purpose of a request to revise is to secure a
statement of the material facts upon which the adverse party bases his complaint or defense.”
Knight v. Southeastern Council on Alcoholism, 2001 WL 1231825 (Conn. Super. J.D. of New
London, Sep. 21, 2001, Hurley, J.T.R.) (citing Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Sup.
9
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SL347, 348 (1980)). “[A] request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant
may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Summit Bank v. Riverview East Associates, 2000 WL 1207295 (Conn. Super. J.D. of
StamfordNorwalk, Aug. 9, 2000, Hickey, J.).
Practice Book § 10-1 provides in relevant part that “[e]ach pleading shall contain a plain
and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies ... such statement to be
divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, each containing as nearly as may be a
separate allegation. If any such pleading does not fully disclose the ground of claim or defense,
the judicial authority may order a fuller and more particular statement[.]” (emphasis supplied).
Colonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against
it. By omitting from Paragraph 2 the parties with whom Phoenix allegedly entered into the
Subcontract, the Complaint fails to supply the basic material facts upon which Plaintiffs rely.
Paragraph 2, therefore, fails to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’
are alleging as the bases for their claims against Colonial and this allegation must be revised for
Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its
defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested.
D. Response:
Objection. In paragraph 2, defense counsel is seeking to have the plaintiffs further identify the
only other party to the Subcontract, which would simply be “Gotham Greenwich Construction
Company LLC”. However, this is unnecessary because in paragraph 11 it is stated that Gotham
Greenwich was the owner under the performance bond and that it was who we believed the
construction manager on the project to be. Further, this claim is about the actions of defendant in
10
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLthe handling the claim on the only bond Phoenix ever had with Colonial. There is only one
indemnity agreement, one payment and performance bond, and one subcontract the bonds could
be related too. Defense counsel is perfectly aware what subcontract is being mentioned and the
basis of this claim.
FOURTH REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Complaint Paragraph 5 which alleges “Prior to May 2008, Phoenix applied for a payment
and performance bond on this Project with Colonial which was approved.” B. Requested Revision:
Revise Complaint Paragraph 5 to clarify whether it is alleged that a payment and
performance was approved, or that an application for a payment and performance bond was
approved; and in either case, the person who gave such alleged approval. C. Reasons
for the Requested Revision:
As alleged, Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is ambiguous as to whether Plaintiffs are
alleging that a bond application was approved, or the bonds themselves were approved, and does
not state who allegedly gave such approval. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must revise Paragraph 5 to
provide a more complete and particular statement of the facts comprising its cause of action
because alleged, Paragraph 5 is ambiguous.
Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain
... amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . .
or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such
amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.”
Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to
11
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1_
03/20/18-HRT/SLdetermine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it
happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how
the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to
compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can
state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby v. City of New
Britain, HHBCV065002738, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1775, at *9-10 (J.D. of New Britain,
July 6, 2007) aff'd 107 Conn. App. 904 (2008); See also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36
Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a
defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). Connecticut is a factpleading
jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate notice of the facts claimed and the issues
to be tried. Todd v. Glines, 217 Conn. 1, 9-10 (1991); New Milford Savings Bank v. Roina, 38
Conn. App. 240, 244 (1995); see also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a complaint “shall contain a plain
and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it does not, the court
may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35(1), if the
plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to obtain “a more
complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.; see also Kileen
v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise is permissible
to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”).
An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the
issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A.
request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is
used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings
12
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLare “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address
ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, 209 Conn. 273, 279-80 (1988). “Trial courts have
consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts
or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC v. Bertch Cabinet Mfg.,
NNHCV106015934S, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1855, at *8 (Super. July 30, 2014, Nazarra, J.);
Savings Bank of Danbury v. 60 Shelter Rock Associates, LLC, Docket No. CV116006248, 2013
Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (Super. June 5, 2013, Pavia, J.) (“A request to revise is [...] the
proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate improper allegations.”);
Brown v. Morant, Docket No. CV106008983S, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (Super.
Oct. 15, 2010, Wilson, J.) (noting that a request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion
resulting ambiguities in the allegation of a complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint
that are ambiguous as to the events and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be
sought through a request to revise, and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through
discovery.” Vaccaro v. United States Bank, N.A., 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002, 5-10 (J.D of
New Haven, May 5, 2015) (emphasis supplied).
Colonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made
against it. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, however, is ambiguous as to whether it is alleged that
the application for the bonds or the bonds themselves were approved, and by whom. Paragraph
5, therefore, fails to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims
and the ambiguity in this allegation must be clarified for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate
the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to
be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense.
13
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLFor the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested.
D. Response:
Objection. It is clear from paragraph 5 and those paragraphs following it that Phoenix applied for
payment and performance bonds with Colonial and that such application was approved. Clearly
a law firm that specializes in surety and construction law know the procedure for applying for a
bond. It is not relevant whom at Colonial gave the approval. Clearly the bonds were issued and
the bond application was approved by someone at Colonial.
FIFTH REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Use of the terms “pre conditions” and “preconditions” in Complaint Paragraphs 10, 18,
26 and 42.
B. Requested Revision:
Revise Complaint Paragraphs 10, 18, 26, 42 to provide a more complete and particular
statement of facts which clarify the meaning of the terms “pre conditions” and “preconditions” as
used in Paragraphs 10, 18, 26, 42.
Cc. Reasons for the Requested Revision:
As used in Complaint Paragraphs 10, 18, 26, 42, the intended meaning of the terms “pre
conditions” and “preconditions” is ambiguous, unclear and confusing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
must revise Paragraphs 10, 18, 26 and 42 to provide a more complete and particular statement of
the facts comprising its cause of action because as alleged, Paragraphs 10, 18, 26 and 42 do not
plainly and concisely state the material facts upon which Plaintiffs based their claims.
Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain
14
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1.
03/20/18-HRT/SL... amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . .
or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such
amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.”
Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to
determine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it
happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how
the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to
compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can
state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby, supra, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1775, at *9-10, See also Kileen, supra, 36 Conn. Supp. 348-49 (“a request to revise is
permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case
for trial.”). Connecticut is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate
notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd, supra, 217 Conn. 9-10; New Milford
Savings Bank, supra, 38 Conn. App. 244; See also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a complaint “shall
contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it
does not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book §
10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to
obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.;
see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise
is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his
case for trial.”).
An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the
issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A
15
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLrequest to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is
used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings
are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address
ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, supra 209 Conn. 279-80. “Trial courts have
consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts
or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC, supra, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1855, at *8; Savings Bank of Danbury, supra, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (“A request
to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate
improper allegations.”); Brown, supra, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (noting that a
request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation
of a complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events
and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise,
and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro, supra, 2015
Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002 * 5-10 (emphasis supplied).
Colonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made
against it. However, the meaning of the terms “pre conditions” and “preconditions,” as used in
Paragraphs 10, 18, 26 and 42, is ambiguous, unclear and confusing. These allegations, therefore,
fail to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and these
allegations must be clarified for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon
which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a
responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested.
16
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLD. Response:
Objection. We are unclear as to what additional information Colonial is seeking to be plead. In
paragraph 10, it states that as per the terms of the Bond there were certain preconditions that had
to be met prior to there being any liability arising out of the Bond and one of them was lack of
owner default. In paragraph 18 plaintiffs set forth what some of those preconditions are. In
paragraph 26 plaintiffs plead that Colonial could have moved for summary judgment using the
preconditions of the bond not being met as a basis. Paragraph 42 merely said that Colonial
breached the bond because it settled without holding the Owner to any of its preconditions.
Colonial is well aware of what preconditions of the performance bond area being addressed as it
plead failure to meet them in its answer in the New York litigation.
SIXTH REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Complaint Paragraph 9 which alleges “Colonial issued a performance bond which James
Barbara reviewed and after such review signed ("Bond")”; and Paragraph 11 which alleges
“Relying on the language of the Bond James Barbara signed it and sent it to Gotham Greenwich
Construction ("GGC") the owner under the Bond and who we believed to be the construction
manager on the Project.”
B. Requested Revision:
Revise Complaint Paragraphs 9 and 11 so as to clarify whether James Barbara signed
“the Bond” in his capacity as an individual and for himself, or, for Phoenix Contracting Group in
the capacity as one of its agents or representatives. C. Reasons for the Requested Revision:
17
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLParagraphs 9 and 11 are ambiguous as to whether it is alleged that James Barbara signed
the referenced performance bond in his capacity as an individual and for himself, or whether he
signed the referenced bond on behalf of Phoenix Contracting Group. As a result of this
ambiguity, Paragraphs 9 and 11 are also ambiguous as to whether Plaintiffs are alleging it was
James Barbara or Phoenix Contracting Group who was a party to the referenced performance
bond. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must revise Paragraphs 9 and 11 to clarify this ambiguity in their
allegations.
Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain
. .. amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . .
or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such
amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.”
Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to
determine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it
happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how
the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to
compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can
state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby, supra, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1775, at *9-10, See also Kileen, supra, 36 Conn. Supp. 348-49 (“a request to revise is
permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case
for trial.”). Connecticut is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate
notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd, supra, 217 Conn. 9-10; New Milford
Savings Bank, supra, 38 Conn. App. 244; See also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a complaint “shall
contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it
18
$L/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLdoes not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book §
10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to
obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.;
see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise
is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his
case for trial.”).
An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the
issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A
request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is
used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings
are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address
ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, supra 209 Conn. 279-80. “Trial courts have
consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts
or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC, supra, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1855, at *8; Savings Bank of Danbury, supra, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (“A request
to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate
improper allegations.”); Brown, supra, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (noting that a
request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation
ofa complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events
and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise,
and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro, supra, 2015
Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002 * 5-10 (emphasis supplied).
19
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLColonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made
against it. Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraphs 9 and 11, however, are ambiguous as to whether
it was James Barbara or Phoenix who became a party to the referenced performance bond.
‘These allegations, therefore, fail to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying
Plaintiffs’ claims and the ambiguity in these allegations must be clarified for it to be possible for
Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are
based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to
prepare its defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested.
Dz. Response:
Objection. Such request is ridiculous. In paragraph 5 it is clear that applicant for the bond was
Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc. not James Barbara. James Barbara could only sign a bond on
behalf of Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc. not individually as he was not a party to the
Subcontract. However, while James Barbara would sign the bond as an agent for Phoenix, the
determination of whether the risk in signing the bond was too great would be made by James
Barbara as an individual and owner of Phoenix as the plaintiffs were personally liable because of
the indemnity agreement.
SEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Complaint Paragraph 11 which alleges “Relying on the language of the Bond James
Barbara signed it and sent it to Gotham Greenwich Construction ("GGC") the owner under the
Bond and who we believed to be the construction manager on the Project.” B.
Requested Revision:
20
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLRevise Complaint Paragraph 11 to clarify the identity of the persons referred to as “we”
in the clause “and who we believed to be to be the construction manager on the Project.” C.
Reasons for the Requested Revision:
Plaintiffs’ use of the first-person plural pronoun “we” in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint,
combined with Plaintiffs’ reference to James Barbara in the third-person, renders Paragraph 11
ambiguous, unclear and confusing. Plaintiffs, therefore, must revise Paragraph 11 to clarify the
identity of the persons referred to as “we” in this allegation.
Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain
--. amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . .
or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such
amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.”
Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to
determine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it
happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how
the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to
compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can
state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby, supra, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1775, at *9-10, See also Kileen, supra, 36 Conn. Supp. 348-49 (“a request to revise is
permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and
prepare his case for trial.”). Connecticut is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must
provide adequate notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd, supra, 217 Conn.
9-10; New Milford Savings Bank, supra, 38 Conn. App. 244; See also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a
21
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1.
03/20/18-HRT/SL.complaint “shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader
relies and if it does not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to
Practice Book § 10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the
proper means to obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the]
pleading.” Id.; see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a
request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead
and prepare his case for trial.”).
An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the
issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A
request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is
used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings
are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address
ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, supra 209 Conn. 279-80. “Trial courts have
consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts
or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC, supra, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1855, at *8; Savings Bank of Danbury, supra, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (“A request
to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate
improper allegations.”); Brown, supra, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (noting that a
request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation
of a complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events
and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise,
and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro, supra, 2015
Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002 * 5-10 (emphasis supplied).
22
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1_
03/20/18-HRT/SLColonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made
against it. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, however, uses the pronoun “we” in manner which
renders ambiguous, unclear and confusing the identity of the persons referred to as “we”.
Paragraph 11, therefore, fails to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying
Plaintiffs’ claims and the ambiguity in this allegation must be clarified for it to be possible for
Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are
based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to
prepare its defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested.
Dz. Response:
Objection. We are the plaintiffs and Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc. which seems to be clear
based upon the language in paragraph 11.
EIGHTH REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Complaint Paragraph 13 which alleges: “At this point, there were substantial breaches of
the Subcontract by the construction manager on the Project because the concrete slabs were out
of tolerance, the window rough openings were the wrong size and the metal decking Phoenix that
had to attach its window fittings were too small and not as per specification, amongst other
breaches of the Subcontract. This resulted in Phoenix having to design and purchase new slab
cover for the entire building at owner's request and hat channel had to be purchased and installed
at owner's request because the metal decking’s ribs were too narrow.” B. Requested Revision:
Revise Complaint Paragraph 13 to state the names of the persons referred to in
23
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLParagraph 13 as “the construction manager on the Project” and the “owner.” C.
Reasons for the Requested Revision:
Paragraph 13 uses the generic terms “the construction manager” and “the owner” without
simply stating the names of the persons being referred to through the use of these terms.
Paragraph 13, therefore, is vague, unclear and ambiguous. Plaintiffs must clarify Paragraph 13
to provide a more complete and particular statement of the facts comprising its cause(s) of action
by stating the names of the persons referred to as the “construction manager” and “owner.”
Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain
... amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . .
or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such
amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.”
Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to
determine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it
happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how
the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to
compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can
state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby, supra, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1775, at *9-10, See also Kileen, supra, 36 Conn. Supp. 348-49 (“a request to revise is
permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case
for trial.”). Connecticut is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate
notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd, supra, 217 Conn. 9-10; New Milford
Savings Bank, supra, 38 Conn. App. 244; See also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a complaint “shall
24
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1.
03/20/18-HRT/SLcontain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it
does not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book §
10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to
obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.;
see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise
is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his
case for trial.”).
An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the
issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A
Tequest to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is
used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings
are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address
ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, supra 209 Conn. 279-80. “Trial courts have
consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts
or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC, supra, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1855, at *8; Savings Bank of Danbury, supra, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (“A request
to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate
improper allegations.”); Brown, supra, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (noting that a
request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation
ofa complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events
and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise,
and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro, supra, 2015
Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002 * 5-10 (emphasis supplied).
25
SL/235555/0002/1493456v1
03/20/18-HRT/SLColonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made
against it. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, however, is vague, unclear and ambiguous as to
whom Plaintiffs are referring to as “the construction manager” and “the owner.” This allegation,
therefore, fails to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and
the ambiguity in this allegation must be clarified for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the
factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be
able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested.
Dz. Response:
Objection. The terms construction manager is unambiguous as it specifically refers to the
company that managed the construction on the project not any construction manager. However,
the term “owner” speaks to the Owner of the property not the owner under the bond so that can
either be changed to owner of the property or Sochin Downtown Realty. For clarity’s sake it
would be easier to plead it as owner of the property. Also in the underlying New York litigation
it was discovered that the construction management agreement was assigned from the owner
under the bond (GGC) to another entity (GCC) after the Subcontract had been signed.
NINTH REQUESTED REVISION
A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised:
Complaint Paragraph 15 which alleges “It was told numerous times that if Phoenix
protected th
Preview
DOCKET NO. AAN-CV17-5012366-S : SUPERIOR COURT JAMES E. BARBARA and : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LINA T. BARBARA. : ANSONIA-MILFORD v. : AT MILFORD COLONIAL SURETY COMPANY : April 13, 2018 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REVISE The defendants, Colonial Surety Company (“Colonial”), pursuant to Practice Book § 1035, hereby requests that the plaintiffs, James E. Barbara and Lina T. Barbara (collectively hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), revise their Complaint dated March 8, 2017 (“Complaint”), as follows: FIRST REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Entire Complaint. 19 ‘OUO4 UM B. Requested Revision: teld €1 Yd¥ 102 v Lufod Nohwguns 3410 SMUT OP Revise the entire Complaint so that that the Complaint alleges separate counts for eacho cause of action as required by Practice Book § 10-26, and sets forth Plaintiffs’ claims for relief separately and after the count(s) containing Plaintiffs’ alleged causes of action, as required by Practice Book § 10-20 and General Statutes § 52-91. C. Reasons for the Requested Revision: As alleged, the Complaint is organized into a “First Claim for Relief’; Complaint, p. 1-8; a “Second Claim” Complaint, p.7-8; and a prayer for relief. Complaint, p. 8-9. The Complaint, therefore, fails to comply with the requirements in Practice Book §§ 10-20 and 10-26 for the 1 S1/235555/0002/1493456v1 UY 03/20/18-HRT/SLmanner in which the allegations, causes of action, and claims for relief in a complaint are required to be organized. Practice Book § 10-35: “Whenever any party desires to obtain (4) any ... appropriate correction in an adverse party's pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party's pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. Practice Book § 10-20 provides: The first pleading on the part of the plaintiff shall be known as the complaint. It shall contain a concise statement of the facts constituting the cause of action and, on a separate page of the complaint, a demand for relief which shall be a statement of the remedy or remedies sought. When money damages are sought in the - demand for relief, the demand for relief shall-include the information required by General Statutes § 52-91. General Statutes § 52-91 provides in relevant part that: When money damages are sought in the demand for relief, the demand for relief shall set forth: (1) That the amount, legal interest or property in demand is fifteen thousand dollars or more, exclusive of interest and costs; or (2) that the amount, legal interest or property in demand is two thousand five hundred dollars or more but is less than fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs; or (3) that the amount, legal interest or property in demand is less than two thousand five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. In addition, in a contract action in which only money damages are sought and in which the amount, legal interest or property in demand is less than fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, the demand for relief shall also set forth whether or not the remedy sought is based upon an express or implied promise to pay a definite sum. SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLPractice Book § 10-26 provides: Where separate and distinct causes of action, as distinguished from separate and distinct claims for relief founded on the same cause of action or transaction, are joined, the statement of the second shall be prefaced by the words Second Count, and so on for the others; and the several paragraphs of each count shall be numbered separately beginning in each count with the number one. As alleged, the Complaint contains no separate counts, and is organized into a “claim for relief” and a “second claim” followed by a prayer for relief in which Plaintiffs seek money damages, which does not contain the information required by General Statutes § 52-91. Furthermore, the Complaint appears purport to allege multiple, distinct, causes of action, none of which are alleged in separate counts as required by Practice Book § 10-26. Within the Complaint, Plaintiffs apparently purport to allege a cause of action for breach of the Indemnity Agreement; Complaint { 23, 41, 46, 55, 56, 62; a cause of action for breach of the performance bond; Complaint { { 42; a cause of action for bad faith breach of contract or breach of the covenant of good faith; Complaint {| { 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 56, 62; and a cause of action for a declaratory judgment. Complaint { {62 and Prayer for Relief { b. As result, the Complaint contains no separate counts, yet purports to contain multiple separate and distinct causes of action. Plaintiffs must revise their complaint so that it sets forth a First Count, Second Count, Third Count, etc., for each separate cause of action which Plaintiffs purport to allege, as required by Practice Book § 10-26, followed by a separate prayer for relief which complies with Practice Book § 10-20 and General Statutes§ 52-91. As alleged, the Complaint fails to comply with Connecticut’s rules of practice and embodies a “slovenly” framing of the issues in dispute. Colonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against 3 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1. 03/20/18-HRT/SLit. Accordingly, the Complaint must be revised as requested to properly frame the causes of action and issues in dispute in this action, for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested. D. Response: This appears to be a matter of form over substance. However, plaintiffs will renumber the allegations into a manner which complies with the pleading requirements if the Court desires. SECOND REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Entire Complaint. B. Requested Revision: Revise the entire Complaint so that that the Complaint alleges a separate count for each distinct cause of action which Plaintiffs purport to allege, including a separate count for each cause of action for breach of each separate and distinct contract (e.g. the Indemnity Agreement or the Bond), a separate count for each cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith in each separate and distinct contract and/or bad faith breach of such contract, and a separate count for the cause of action for declaratory judgment. C. Reasons for the Requested Revision: The Complaint contains no separate counts, yet appears to improperly attempt to allege multiple different causes of action for breaches of separate and distinct contracts, breaches of the SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLcovenant of good faith and/or bad faith breach of separate and distinct contracts, and a cause of action for a declaratory judgment. Practice Book § 10-35: “Whenever any party desires to obtain ... (3) separation of causes of action which may be united in one complaint when they are improperly combined in one count ... or (4) any other appropriate correction in an adverse party's pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party's pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Id. Practice Book § 10-26 provides: Where separate and distinct causes of action, as distinguished from separate and distinct claims for relief founded on the same cause of action or transaction, are joined, the statement of the second shall be prefaced by the words Second Count, and so on for the others; and the several paragraphs of each count shall be numbered separately beginning in each count with the number one. Each separate and distinct contract “furnishes a different cause of action” for breach of the same, which is separate and distinct from causes of action arising under other contracts with independent obligations, such that a cause of action for breach of each “distinct contract” should be alleged in a separate count from causes of action claiming breach of different contracts. Beizer v Dictograph Products, Inc., 6 Conn. Cir. 28, 263 A.2d 93, 96-97 (1969). In a properly drawn complaint, alleged claims for breach of multiple different contracts are not properly combined in one count. Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, CV030404311, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1849 5 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SL*1 (Super. July 20, 2005, Doherty, J.). Accordingly, each claim for breach of a separate and distinct contract constitutes a separate and distinct cause of action which must be pleaded in a separate count. Similarly, “[a] claim of a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a separate cause of action.” Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., HHDCVX04085023532S, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1409 at *26 (Super. May 11, 2010, Shapiro, J.); Michel v. Bridgeport Hospital, CV116015195, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 538, *15 (Super. Mar. 7, 2011, Levin, J.). A single count which alleges both breach of a contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith, “combines two causes of action in one count.” Cabrera v. American School for the Deaf, Docket No. HHDCV126035273S, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 447, at *3 (Super. Feb. 26, 2013, Schuman, J.). Accordingly, claims alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith or alleging bad faith breach of a contract, are separate and distinct causes of action from other claims alleging breach of the contract which underlies the bad faith/breach of good faith claims. Furthermore, a cause of action that the covenant of good faith in one contract has been breached, must be alleged in a separate count from causes of action alleging that the convent of good faith in other different contracts has been breached. RAB Associates, LLC v. Bertch Cabinet Mfg., NNHCV106015934S, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1855, at *13 (Super. July 30, 2014, Nazarra, J.) (overruling objection to request to revise requesting that each cause of action for breach of good faith arising from a separate contract be pled in a separate count because “it is evident that each contract can create a separate cause of action for breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”). $L/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLAdditionally, a claim seeking a declaratory judgment constitutes a separate cause of action from other causes of action based on the same facts, events and transactions underlying the claim for declaratory relief. A claim for a declaratory judgment is itself a separate cause of action with its own particular pleading requirements which must be satisfied to sufficiently “state a cause of action for declaratory judgment.” ABB Automation, Inc. v. Zaharna, 77 Conn. App. 260, 266-67 (2003) (examining whether allegations comply with Practice Book § 17-55 so as to sufficiently state a cause of action for declaratory judgment.); Bombero v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 40 Conn. App. 75, 85-86 (1996) (examining whether complaint alleges facts sufficient to “state a cause of action for [declaratory] relief...”) As alleged, the Complaint appears to purport to allege multiple, distinct, causes of action, none of which are alleged in separate counts as required by Practice Book § 10-26. Within the Complaint, Plaintiffs apparently purport to allege a cause of action for breach of the Indemnity Agreement; Complaint { { 23, 41, 46, 55, 56, 62; a cause of action for breach of the performance bond; Complaint { { 42; a cause of action for bad faith breach of contract or breach of the covenant of good faith; Complaint { { 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 56, 62; and a cause of action for a declaratory judgment. Complaint { { 62 and Prayer for Relief {[b. As result, the Complaint contains no separate counts, yet purports to contain multiple separate and distinct causes of action. Plaintiffs must revise their complaint so that each separate cause of action is alleged in a separate count, as required by Practice Book § 10-26. As alleged, the Complaint fails to comply with Connecticut’s rules of practice and embodies a “slovenly” framing of the issues in dispute. The Complaint must be revised as requested to properly frame the causes of action and issues in SL/235555/0002/1493456v1. 03/20/18-HRT/SLdispute in this action, for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested. Dz. Response: Objection. Plaintiffs find this request to be unclear and ambiguous. Plaintiff has already divided the complaint into two separate causes of action, one for a declaratory judgment and the other for damages for breaching the Indemnity Agreement and the performance bond. Is defense counsel seeking a separate count to be plead for breach of contract of the Indemnity agreement with a separate count plead for breach of contract of the performance bond? Is defense counsel requesting we plead a separate count of the breach of the implied covenant of good faith for the indemnity agreement with a separate count for pleading breach of the implied covenant of good faith of the performance bond? Is defense counsel seeking a separate count for each specific breach of the either the implied covenant of good faith or of the indemnity agreement? Plaintiffs are unsure of what Colonial is seeking. THIRD REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Complaint Paragraph 2 which alleges “On or about June 15, 2007, Phoenix executed a subcontract ("Subcontract") to supply and install window wall, and other fenestration products throughout the construction located at 150 Lafayette Street, New York, NY ("Project") a 26 story hotel.” B. Requested Revision: $1/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLRevise Complaint Paragraph 2 to state the names of the parties, other than Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc., to the Subcontract referred to in Paragraph 2. C. Reasons for the Requested Revision: Paragraph 2 alleges that Phoenix entered into a Subcontract, yet fails to disclose the other parties to that Subcontract. Accordingly, Paragraph 2 falls short of providing the basic information which comprises the material facts upon which Plaintiffs’ causes of action are based. Practice Book § 10-35: “Whenever any party desires to obtain (1) a more complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party's pleading, or (2) the deletion of any unnecessary, repetitious, scandalous, impertinent, immaterial or otherwise improper allegations in an adverse party's pleading, or (3) separation of causes of action which may be united in one complaint when they are improperly combined in one count, or the separation of two or more grounds of defense improperly combined in one defense, or (4) any other appropriate correction in an adverse party's pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party's pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. Indeed, “the proper way to cure any confusion . . . [about what is being pleaded] is to file a motion to revise . . -.” Rowe v. Godou, 209 Conn. 273, 279 (1988). The purpose of a request to revise is to secure a statement of the material facts upon which the adverse party bases his complaint or defense.” Knight v. Southeastern Council on Alcoholism, 2001 WL 1231825 (Conn. Super. J.D. of New London, Sep. 21, 2001, Hurley, J.T.R.) (citing Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Sup. 9 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SL347, 348 (1980)). “[A] request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Summit Bank v. Riverview East Associates, 2000 WL 1207295 (Conn. Super. J.D. of StamfordNorwalk, Aug. 9, 2000, Hickey, J.). Practice Book § 10-1 provides in relevant part that “[e]ach pleading shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies ... such statement to be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, each containing as nearly as may be a separate allegation. If any such pleading does not fully disclose the ground of claim or defense, the judicial authority may order a fuller and more particular statement[.]” (emphasis supplied). Colonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against it. By omitting from Paragraph 2 the parties with whom Phoenix allegedly entered into the Subcontract, the Complaint fails to supply the basic material facts upon which Plaintiffs rely. Paragraph 2, therefore, fails to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ are alleging as the bases for their claims against Colonial and this allegation must be revised for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested. D. Response: Objection. In paragraph 2, defense counsel is seeking to have the plaintiffs further identify the only other party to the Subcontract, which would simply be “Gotham Greenwich Construction Company LLC”. However, this is unnecessary because in paragraph 11 it is stated that Gotham Greenwich was the owner under the performance bond and that it was who we believed the construction manager on the project to be. Further, this claim is about the actions of defendant in 10 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLthe handling the claim on the only bond Phoenix ever had with Colonial. There is only one indemnity agreement, one payment and performance bond, and one subcontract the bonds could be related too. Defense counsel is perfectly aware what subcontract is being mentioned and the basis of this claim. FOURTH REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Complaint Paragraph 5 which alleges “Prior to May 2008, Phoenix applied for a payment and performance bond on this Project with Colonial which was approved.” B. Requested Revision: Revise Complaint Paragraph 5 to clarify whether it is alleged that a payment and performance was approved, or that an application for a payment and performance bond was approved; and in either case, the person who gave such alleged approval. C. Reasons for the Requested Revision: As alleged, Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is ambiguous as to whether Plaintiffs are alleging that a bond application was approved, or the bonds themselves were approved, and does not state who allegedly gave such approval. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must revise Paragraph 5 to provide a more complete and particular statement of the facts comprising its cause of action because alleged, Paragraph 5 is ambiguous. Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain ... amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . . or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to 11 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1_ 03/20/18-HRT/SLdetermine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby v. City of New Britain, HHBCV065002738, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1775, at *9-10 (J.D. of New Britain, July 6, 2007) aff'd 107 Conn. App. 904 (2008); See also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). Connecticut is a factpleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd v. Glines, 217 Conn. 1, 9-10 (1991); New Milford Savings Bank v. Roina, 38 Conn. App. 240, 244 (1995); see also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a complaint “shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it does not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.; see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A. request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings 12 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLare “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, 209 Conn. 273, 279-80 (1988). “Trial courts have consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC v. Bertch Cabinet Mfg., NNHCV106015934S, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1855, at *8 (Super. July 30, 2014, Nazarra, J.); Savings Bank of Danbury v. 60 Shelter Rock Associates, LLC, Docket No. CV116006248, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (Super. June 5, 2013, Pavia, J.) (“A request to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate improper allegations.”); Brown v. Morant, Docket No. CV106008983S, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (Super. Oct. 15, 2010, Wilson, J.) (noting that a request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation of a complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise, and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro v. United States Bank, N.A., 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002, 5-10 (J.D of New Haven, May 5, 2015) (emphasis supplied). Colonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against it. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, however, is ambiguous as to whether it is alleged that the application for the bonds or the bonds themselves were approved, and by whom. Paragraph 5, therefore, fails to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and the ambiguity in this allegation must be clarified for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense. 13 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLFor the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested. D. Response: Objection. It is clear from paragraph 5 and those paragraphs following it that Phoenix applied for payment and performance bonds with Colonial and that such application was approved. Clearly a law firm that specializes in surety and construction law know the procedure for applying for a bond. It is not relevant whom at Colonial gave the approval. Clearly the bonds were issued and the bond application was approved by someone at Colonial. FIFTH REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Use of the terms “pre conditions” and “preconditions” in Complaint Paragraphs 10, 18, 26 and 42. B. Requested Revision: Revise Complaint Paragraphs 10, 18, 26, 42 to provide a more complete and particular statement of facts which clarify the meaning of the terms “pre conditions” and “preconditions” as used in Paragraphs 10, 18, 26, 42. Cc. Reasons for the Requested Revision: As used in Complaint Paragraphs 10, 18, 26, 42, the intended meaning of the terms “pre conditions” and “preconditions” is ambiguous, unclear and confusing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must revise Paragraphs 10, 18, 26 and 42 to provide a more complete and particular statement of the facts comprising its cause of action because as alleged, Paragraphs 10, 18, 26 and 42 do not plainly and concisely state the material facts upon which Plaintiffs based their claims. Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain 14 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1. 03/20/18-HRT/SL... amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . . or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to determine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby, supra, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1775, at *9-10, See also Kileen, supra, 36 Conn. Supp. 348-49 (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). Connecticut is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd, supra, 217 Conn. 9-10; New Milford Savings Bank, supra, 38 Conn. App. 244; See also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a complaint “shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it does not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.; see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A 15 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLrequest to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, supra 209 Conn. 279-80. “Trial courts have consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC, supra, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1855, at *8; Savings Bank of Danbury, supra, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (“A request to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate improper allegations.”); Brown, supra, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (noting that a request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation of a complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise, and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro, supra, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002 * 5-10 (emphasis supplied). Colonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against it. However, the meaning of the terms “pre conditions” and “preconditions,” as used in Paragraphs 10, 18, 26 and 42, is ambiguous, unclear and confusing. These allegations, therefore, fail to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and these allegations must be clarified for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested. 16 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLD. Response: Objection. We are unclear as to what additional information Colonial is seeking to be plead. In paragraph 10, it states that as per the terms of the Bond there were certain preconditions that had to be met prior to there being any liability arising out of the Bond and one of them was lack of owner default. In paragraph 18 plaintiffs set forth what some of those preconditions are. In paragraph 26 plaintiffs plead that Colonial could have moved for summary judgment using the preconditions of the bond not being met as a basis. Paragraph 42 merely said that Colonial breached the bond because it settled without holding the Owner to any of its preconditions. Colonial is well aware of what preconditions of the performance bond area being addressed as it plead failure to meet them in its answer in the New York litigation. SIXTH REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Complaint Paragraph 9 which alleges “Colonial issued a performance bond which James Barbara reviewed and after such review signed ("Bond")”; and Paragraph 11 which alleges “Relying on the language of the Bond James Barbara signed it and sent it to Gotham Greenwich Construction ("GGC") the owner under the Bond and who we believed to be the construction manager on the Project.” B. Requested Revision: Revise Complaint Paragraphs 9 and 11 so as to clarify whether James Barbara signed “the Bond” in his capacity as an individual and for himself, or, for Phoenix Contracting Group in the capacity as one of its agents or representatives. C. Reasons for the Requested Revision: 17 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLParagraphs 9 and 11 are ambiguous as to whether it is alleged that James Barbara signed the referenced performance bond in his capacity as an individual and for himself, or whether he signed the referenced bond on behalf of Phoenix Contracting Group. As a result of this ambiguity, Paragraphs 9 and 11 are also ambiguous as to whether Plaintiffs are alleging it was James Barbara or Phoenix Contracting Group who was a party to the referenced performance bond. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must revise Paragraphs 9 and 11 to clarify this ambiguity in their allegations. Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain . .. amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . . or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to determine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby, supra, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1775, at *9-10, See also Kileen, supra, 36 Conn. Supp. 348-49 (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). Connecticut is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd, supra, 217 Conn. 9-10; New Milford Savings Bank, supra, 38 Conn. App. 244; See also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a complaint “shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it 18 $L/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLdoes not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.; see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, supra 209 Conn. 279-80. “Trial courts have consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC, supra, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1855, at *8; Savings Bank of Danbury, supra, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (“A request to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate improper allegations.”); Brown, supra, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (noting that a request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation ofa complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise, and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro, supra, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002 * 5-10 (emphasis supplied). 19 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLColonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against it. Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraphs 9 and 11, however, are ambiguous as to whether it was James Barbara or Phoenix who became a party to the referenced performance bond. ‘These allegations, therefore, fail to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and the ambiguity in these allegations must be clarified for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested. Dz. Response: Objection. Such request is ridiculous. In paragraph 5 it is clear that applicant for the bond was Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc. not James Barbara. James Barbara could only sign a bond on behalf of Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc. not individually as he was not a party to the Subcontract. However, while James Barbara would sign the bond as an agent for Phoenix, the determination of whether the risk in signing the bond was too great would be made by James Barbara as an individual and owner of Phoenix as the plaintiffs were personally liable because of the indemnity agreement. SEVENTH REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Complaint Paragraph 11 which alleges “Relying on the language of the Bond James Barbara signed it and sent it to Gotham Greenwich Construction ("GGC") the owner under the Bond and who we believed to be the construction manager on the Project.” B. Requested Revision: 20 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLRevise Complaint Paragraph 11 to clarify the identity of the persons referred to as “we” in the clause “and who we believed to be to be the construction manager on the Project.” C. Reasons for the Requested Revision: Plaintiffs’ use of the first-person plural pronoun “we” in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, combined with Plaintiffs’ reference to James Barbara in the third-person, renders Paragraph 11 ambiguous, unclear and confusing. Plaintiffs, therefore, must revise Paragraph 11 to clarify the identity of the persons referred to as “we” in this allegation. Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain --. amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . . or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to determine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby, supra, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1775, at *9-10, See also Kileen, supra, 36 Conn. Supp. 348-49 (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). Connecticut is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd, supra, 217 Conn. 9-10; New Milford Savings Bank, supra, 38 Conn. App. 244; See also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a 21 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1. 03/20/18-HRT/SL.complaint “shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it does not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.; see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A request to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, supra 209 Conn. 279-80. “Trial courts have consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC, supra, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1855, at *8; Savings Bank of Danbury, supra, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (“A request to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate improper allegations.”); Brown, supra, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (noting that a request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation of a complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise, and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro, supra, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002 * 5-10 (emphasis supplied). 22 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1_ 03/20/18-HRT/SLColonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against it. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, however, uses the pronoun “we” in manner which renders ambiguous, unclear and confusing the identity of the persons referred to as “we”. Paragraph 11, therefore, fails to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and the ambiguity in this allegation must be clarified for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested. Dz. Response: Objection. We are the plaintiffs and Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc. which seems to be clear based upon the language in paragraph 11. EIGHTH REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Complaint Paragraph 13 which alleges: “At this point, there were substantial breaches of the Subcontract by the construction manager on the Project because the concrete slabs were out of tolerance, the window rough openings were the wrong size and the metal decking Phoenix that had to attach its window fittings were too small and not as per specification, amongst other breaches of the Subcontract. This resulted in Phoenix having to design and purchase new slab cover for the entire building at owner's request and hat channel had to be purchased and installed at owner's request because the metal decking’s ribs were too narrow.” B. Requested Revision: Revise Complaint Paragraph 13 to state the names of the persons referred to in 23 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLParagraph 13 as “the construction manager on the Project” and the “owner.” C. Reasons for the Requested Revision: Paragraph 13 uses the generic terms “the construction manager” and “the owner” without simply stating the names of the persons being referred to through the use of these terms. Paragraph 13, therefore, is vague, unclear and ambiguous. Plaintiffs must clarify Paragraph 13 to provide a more complete and particular statement of the facts comprising its cause(s) of action by stating the names of the persons referred to as the “construction manager” and “owner.” Connecticut Practice Book § 10-35 provides that “[w]henever any party desires to obtain ... amore complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . . or any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading.” Fact pleading, as required by Connecticut’s rules of practice, is intended to allow a defendant to determine “with reasonable specificity what the plaintiff claims happened to [them]: when it happened, who was involved, how the conduct infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, and how the plaintiff was harmed .... So too the proper purpose of the request to revise be understood: to compel the plaintiff to state [their] grievances plainly and specifically so that the defendants can state their responses plainly and specifically as well.” Lebby, supra, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1775, at *9-10, See also Kileen, supra, 36 Conn. Supp. 348-49 (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). Connecticut is a fact-pleading jurisdiction and the Complaint must provide adequate notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried. Todd, supra, 217 Conn. 9-10; New Milford Savings Bank, supra, 38 Conn. App. 244; See also Conn. Prac. Bk. § 10-1 (a complaint “shall 24 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1. 03/20/18-HRT/SLcontain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies and if it does not, the court may order a full or more particular statement”). Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35(1), if the plaintiff does not plead adequate facts, a request to revise is the proper means to obtain “a more complete or more particular statement of the allegations of [the] pleading.” Id.; see also Kileen v. General Motors Corp., 36 Conn. Supp. 347, 348-49 1980) (“a request to revise is permissible to obtain information so that a defendant may intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial.”). An “essential purpose” of pleading is “to apprise the court and opposing counsel of the issues to be tried.” Thames River Recycling v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 782-783 (1998). A Tequest to revise provides a procedural remedy to correct an adverse party’s pleading which is used for “framing of issues for trial” where the facts and issues in the opposing party’s pleadings are “framed in a slovenly manner.” Jd. A request to revise is the appropriate vehicle to address ambiguities in a complaint. Rowe v. Godou, supra 209 Conn. 279-80. “Trial courts have consistently recognized that a request to revise may be used to clarify ambiguously pleaded facts or to eliminate improper allegations.” RAB Associates, LLC, supra, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1855, at *8; Savings Bank of Danbury, supra, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1309, at *8 (“A request to revise is [...] the proper vehicle ... to clarify facts pleaded ambiguously or to eliminate improper allegations.”); Brown, supra, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2672, at *11 (noting that a request to revise is the proper way to cure any confusion resulting ambiguities in the allegation ofa complaint.) Clarification of allegations in a complaint that are ambiguous as to the events and transactions relevant to the plaintiff's claims should be sought through a request to revise, and such clarifications are “not more properly sought through discovery.” Vaccaro, supra, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1002 * 5-10 (emphasis supplied). 25 SL/235555/0002/1493456v1 03/20/18-HRT/SLColonial is entitled to be apprised of the material factual basis of the claims being made against it. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, however, is vague, unclear and ambiguous as to whom Plaintiffs are referring to as “the construction manager” and “the owner.” This allegation, therefore, fails to give fair notice to Colonial of the basic facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and the ambiguity in this allegation must be clarified for it to be possible for Colonial to evaluate the factual bases upon which all Plaintiffs’ claims against Colonial are based, and for Colonial to be able to frame a responsive pleading and have a fair opportunity to prepare its defense. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint must be revised as requested. Dz. Response: Objection. The terms construction manager is unambiguous as it specifically refers to the company that managed the construction on the project not any construction manager. However, the term “owner” speaks to the Owner of the property not the owner under the bond so that can either be changed to owner of the property or Sochin Downtown Realty. For clarity’s sake it would be easier to plead it as owner of the property. Also in the underlying New York litigation it was discovered that the construction management agreement was assigned from the owner under the bond (GGC) to another entity (GCC) after the Subcontract had been signed. NINTH REQUESTED REVISION A. Portion of Pleading Sought to Be Revised: Complaint Paragraph 15 which alleges “It was told numerous times that if Phoenix protected th