Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 34 — · Chapter 613a — Uniform Limited Liability Company Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 34-271c (2026)

Derivative action. Pleading

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In a derivative action, the complaint must state with particularity: (1) The date and content of plaintiff's demand and the response by the managers or other members to the demand; or (2) why the demand should be excused as futile.

(P.A. 16-97, S. 67.)

History: P.A. 16-97 effective July 1, 2017.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case: Rubin v. Brodie (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rubin v. Brodie (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 24× “’’ General Statutes § 34-271c provides: ‘‘In a derivative action, the complaint must state with particularity: (1) The date and content of plaintiff’s demand and the response by the managers or other members to the demand; or (2) why the demand should be excused as futile.”
Rubin v. Brodie (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 24× “’’ General Statutes § 34-271c provides: ‘‘In a derivative action, the complaint must state with particularity: (1) The date and content of plaintiff’s demand and the response by the managers or other members to the demand; or (2) why the demand should be excused as futile.”
N.E. Constr. Co., LLC v. Anton (Conn. App. Ct. 2026). · cites it 6× “” Similarly, General Statutes § 34-271c requires that, “[i]n a derivative action, the complaint must state with particularity: (1) The date and content of the plaintiff’s demand and the response by the managers or other members to the demand; or (2) why the demand should be…”
Configair LLC v. Kurz (D. Conn. 2019). “§ 34-271c. 22 Kurz concedes that he had not made a demand but contends that any such demand would be futile.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.