As explained in the 2010 Connecticut Supreme Court case of Gold v. Rowland, "[t]he granting of a motion to strike…ordinarily is not a final judgment because our rules of practice afford a party a right to amend deficient pleadings." The plaintiff, Anthony J. Pellecchia, administrator of the estate of Anthony E. Pellecchia, appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing his claims against Connecticut Light and Power Company, Northeast Utilities and Northeast Utilities Service Company, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims because they were not brought within the applicable statute of limitations, C.G.S. §52-555. The trial court determined that the claims could not be saved by the Accidental Failure of Suit Statute, C.G.S. §52-592. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and adopted the decision of the trial court as a statement of the facts and applicable law on the issue. Further discussion was found unnecessary. The plaintiff also appealed from the trial court's ruling granting the motion to strike filed by the apportionment defendant, the town of Killingly. The Appellate Court dismissed this portion of the appeal for lack of a final judgment. The trial court had not rendered judgment on the stricken claims against the town and, thus, there was no final judgment as to those claims. The lack of a final judgment implicated the subject matter jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to hear the appeal. 

VIEW FULL CASE