Edward Bateson et al. v. Gary Weddle (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

MOTION TO REARGUE

The respondent, Gary Weddle, has filed a motion to reargue the court's decision regarding the respondent's motion to strike the writ of quo warranto.   The court's decision is dated September 18, 2009.   See Bateson v. Weddle, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV09 4028444 (Sept. 18, 2009, Arnold, J.).   The respondent argues first, that the court in its decision, discussed and determined the question of taxpayer standing to pursue a writ of quo warranto when that issue was not briefed or argued.   Second, the respondent argues that the court improperly adjudicated issues relating to the town charter without the defendant having premised he motion to strike upon such issue and without the respondent having the opportunity to brief or litigate the issue.   Third, the respondent claims the trial court improperly determined that the respondent Weddle is a public official when that issue was not submitted for argument and was not briefed by the respondent.

The court noted in its decision that while the respondent-defendant had filed a motion to strike regarding the sufficiency of the complaint, he also raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction relating to his claim that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action.¹  While raising the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the respondent had not filed a motion to dismiss.   The court determined it needed to address, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction raised by the defendant, alleging that the plaintiff's lack of standing to pursue their quo warranto claim, to determine if the matter was properly before the court.

[A] court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought by persons who do not have standing ․ (Citation omitted.)  Orsi v. Senatore, 230 Conn. 459, 470, 645 A.2d 986 (1994);  see also Middletown v. Hartford Electric Light Co., 192 Conn. 591, 595, 473 A.2d 787 (1984) (“[t]he issue of ․ standing must be addressed before we reach the substantive merits of the [parties'] claim, because standing has jurisdictional implications”), overruled in part on other grounds by Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 545, 800 A.2d 1102 (2002).   Moreover, concerns regarding subject matter jurisdiction implicate the court's fundamental authority and may properly be raised and decided by the court sua sponte.²  See, e.g., Peters v. Dept. of Social Services, 273 Conn. 434, 441, 870 A.2d 448 (2005) (“[It is a fundamental rule that a court may raise and review the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time ․ Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it ․ [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction ․” [Internal quotation marks omitted.] ).   Furthermore, there is no question that this court has jurisdiction to consider, on its own initiative, the jurisdiction of the trial court.   See, e.g., Commissioner of Transportation v. Rocky Mountain, LLC, 277 Conn. 696, 703, 894 A.2d 259 (2006);  Lewis v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 275 Conn. 383, 385, 880 A.2d 865 (2005).”  Soracco v. Williams Scotsman, Inc., 292 Conn. 86, 90-91, 971 A.2d 1 (2009).

The defendant, having initially raised the issue of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, cannot now complain that it was addressed by the court.   It is also clear that the court could raise this jurisdictional issue on its own initiative, had the defendant-respondent not already done so.

In determining the merits of the respondent's motion to strike the court proceeded to determine if the petitioners-plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded a quo warranto action.   In doing so, the court needed to determine whether the position of Wetlands Compliance Officer, the position to which the respondent-defendant was appointed to, was a public office, as alleged by the plaintiffs.  New Haven Firebird Society v. Board of Fire Commissioners, supra, 436;  State ex rel. Stage v. Mackie, 82 Conn. 398, 400, 74 A. 759 (1909).   To determine this question, the court needed to see if the position met the two relevant criteria, which were:  (1) the position must have its source in a sovereign authority speaking through the constitution or legislative;  and (2) its incumbent, by virtue of his incumbency, must be vested with some portion of the sovereign power which he is to exercise or the benefit of the public.  State ex rel. Neal v. Brethauer, 83 Conn. 143, 146, 75 A. 705 (1910).   The court, therefore, reviewed the Town Charter, as it applied to the Fairfield Conservation Commission, the position of Conservation Director and the wetlands administrator.   Upon review, the court concluded that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded that the respondent-defendant's position was a public office that is authorized by the Charter.   A wetlands administrator in the Town of Fairfield, if properly engaged or appointed, is invested with a portion of the sovereign power, which is to be exercised for the public good.

The next issue determined by the court was whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded that the defendant's appointment to the position of wetlands administrator was illegal, null and void “in that it failed to comply with the Charter's mandatory requirement” that the wetlands administrator be subject to the general supervision of the Conservation Director.   See. Section 10.3.D. of the Town Charter.   Again, to determine the sufficiency of the pleading, the court needed to review the Town Charter.

The court finds that the respondent-defendant's arguments regarding the motion to re-argue are without merit.   The court hereby reaffirms its decision of September 18, 2009, denying the motion to strike the plaintiff-petitioners' writ of quo warranto.

Judge Richard E. Arnold

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In its Memorandum of Decision the court specifically stated the following:“The defendant also claims that the plaintiffs are in essence seeking a declaratory judgment to determine the present role of the Conservation Director in the limited proceeding regarding a prerogative writ of quo warranto.   The defendant argues that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over any such declaratory relief, and again, states the plaintiffs have no standing.”  Bateson v. Weddle, supra, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV09 4028444 (Sept. 18, 2009, Arnold, J.)..  FN1. In its Memorandum of Decision the court specifically stated the following:“The defendant also claims that the plaintiffs are in essence seeking a declaratory judgment to determine the present role of the Conservation Director in the limited proceeding regarding a prerogative writ of quo warranto.   The defendant argues that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over any such declaratory relief, and again, states the plaintiffs have no standing.”  Bateson v. Weddle, supra, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV09 4028444 (Sept. 18, 2009, Arnold, J.).

FN2. The plaintiffs had the opportunity to address the issue of standing and did address the issue in their memorandum of law..  FN2. The plaintiffs had the opportunity to address the issue of standing and did address the issue in their memorandum of law.

Arnold, Richard E., J.