Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut; December 8, 1970; Connecticut; State Supreme Court
On November 15, 1968, the defendant labor commissioner notified Good Humor Corporation of an impending inspection of its records for compliance with overtime wage laws. In response, the corporation and employee Henry W. Michaud, Sr. filed an equitable action to prevent the inspection on November 25, 1968. The court issued a temporary injunction against the inspection on December 16, 1968. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on February 3, 1969, but the defendant demurred on March 20, 1969, citing an adequate legal remedy. The court sustained the demurrer on June 11, 1969, leading the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint on June 17, 1969. The defendant moved to expunge this amended complaint on June 23, claiming it was redundant. The court granted this motion on August 13, 1969. The plaintiffs' request to continue the temporary injunction was granted on October 15, 1969, but on November 14, 1969, the court ruled in favor of the defendant regarding the demurrer and expunged the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the demurrer should not have been sustained. However, the court clarified that once an amended complaint is filed, the original pleading and any associated rulings, including the sustaining of a demurrer, are effectively withdrawn from the case. The plaintiffs' choice to amend their complaint precludes them from simultaneously appealing the demurrer ruling. The court emphasized this rule's purpose in preventing prolonged litigation and noted that allowing both complaints to coexist would create an absurd situation. The next step is to evaluate whether the expunging of the amended complaint was erroneous.
A motion to expunge an amended complaint is valid if the amended allegations are essentially the same as those in the original complaint, particularly after a demurrer has been sustained. In this case, the original complaint's demurrer was upheld because equitable relief was deemed unnecessary due to the availability of an adequate legal remedy. The amended complaint fails to introduce a new cause of action or rectify the original defect, as it largely restates the original claims. Of the twenty-three paragraphs in the first count of the amended complaint, twenty are identical to the original, and the new paragraph 15a does not address the defect but merely asserts the plaintiff corporation's exemption from overtime provisions. Changes made to paragraph 21 clarify the potential consequences of the defendant's actions but do not remedy the original complaint's issues. The second count remains unchanged except for the inclusion of the ineffective paragraph 15a. The plaintiffs argue that a new third count presents a different cause of action based on statutory interpretation; however, this is not accepted, as it essentially reiterates the original claim regarding the application of overtime provisions. Overall, the amended complaint does not offer substantial changes or new grounds for relief, leading to the conclusion that the motion to expunge was appropriately granted. The opinion is unanimously supported by the other judges.
