Opinion
HHDCV155040545
10-31-2016
Michelle Sims v. Greater Hartford Legal Aid
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Filed October 31, 2016
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Nina F. Elgo, J.
Before this court is a motion to strike the complaint filed by the self-represented plaintiff, Michelle Sims, who appears to have brought a complaint against the defendant, Greater Hartford Legal Aid (GHLA), alleging legal malpractice. This court (Elgo, J.) has previously stricken the allegations sounding in fraud on April 10, 2016; thereafter, the court (Peck J.) entered judgment for the defendant as to that claim. Although this court must allow some latitude in reviewing the complaint in light of the plaintiff's representation of herself in this matter, it is nevertheless bound by the rule of law and rules of practice which govern how the claims of parties are fairly and properly brought before it. " Although we will not entirely disregard our rules of practice, we do give great latitude to pro se litigants in order that justice may both be done and be seen to be done . . . For justice to be done, however, any latitude given to pro se litigants cannot interfere with the rights of other parties, nor can we disregard completely our rules of practice." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Belica v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 126 Conn.App. 779, 787, 12 A.3d 1067 (2011).
Practice Book § 10-39(a) provides that " [a] motion to strike shall be used whenever any party wishes to contest: (1) the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint, counterclaim or cross claim, or of any one or more counts thereof, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (2) the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief in any such complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint; or (3) the legal sufficiency of any such complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint, or any count thereof, because of the absence of any necessary party or, pursuant to Section 17-56(b), the failure to join or give notice to any interested person; or (4) the joining of two or more causes of action which cannot properly be united in one complaint, whether the same be stated in one or more counts; or (5) the legal sufficiency of any answer to any complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint, or any part of that answer including any special defense contained therein."
In order to survive a motion to strike, the plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to support her claim of legal malpractice. " [T]o prove any legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must establish the four necessary elements: (1) an attorney-client relationship; (2) a wrongful act or omission by the attorney; (3) proximate cause; and (4) legal damages . . . Put another way, a plaintiff must prove that there existed an attorney-client relationship and that the client sustained legal injury or damage that proximately was caused by the attorney's wrongful act or omission." " [T]o prove any legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must establish the four necessary elements: (1) an attorney-client relationship; (2) a wrongful act or omission by the attorney; (3) proximate cause; and (4) legal damages . . . Put another way, a plaintiff must prove that there existed an attorney-client relationship and that the client sustained legal injury or damage that proximately was caused by the attorney's wrongful act or omission." Lukas v. McCoy, 157 Conn.App. 384, 391, 116 A.3d 827 (2015).
In its motion to strike, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff, to the extent that she seeks to bring a claim of legal malpractice against it, has failed to state a claim by which relief may be granted. Indeed, the plaintiff's complaint suffers from several deficiencies and unfortunately, is simply incomprehensible. For example, this court cannot determine whether the plaintiff had an attorney-client relationship with the defendant to the extent that the plaintiff alleges that the " defendant failure to represent nor provide self service to the plaintiff" and " defendant neither been never was mind attorney nor legal representatives as of all this whole time bee ever since no provide help and never given with proper legal service from with 'no one.'" As a result, this court cannot, therefore, discern what the defendant's duty was to the plaintiff, whether there was a wrongful act committed in dereliction of that duty and how that wrongful act caused the plaintiff the damages she claims. Because the court concludes that the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a legally sufficient cause of action, the motion to strike the complaint is granted.