Curtis Reddick v. Southern Connecticut State University (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS (# 101)

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiff did not timely file his lawsuit in Superior Court within the prescribed ninety-day window pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 46a–101e.

The Plaintiffs' action alleges disability discrimination in violation of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA).   The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant prior to his termination.

The plaintiff received a release of jurisdiction from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities on April 28, 2010.   On July 13, 2010 the Plaintiff filed a complaint in Federal District Court alleging disability discrimination in violation of CFEPA.   The federal court declined to accept jurisdiction over the state law claim which was part of the complaint filed.   The Plaintiff then filed this action on June 16, 2011 alleging the same state law claim of disability discrimination.

The Defendant contends this motion to dismiss should be granted as Connecticut General Statutes § 46a–101e requires this type of action to be filed in State Superior Court within ninety days of the release from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

Plaintiff contends this motion to dismiss should be denied as he brought his action in the federal court within the ninety-day time period and this state action is saved by the Accidental Failure of Suit Statute.

The Accidental Failure of Suit Statute, Connecticut General Statutes § 52–592, provides:

(a) If any action, commenced within the time limited by law, has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits ․ because the action has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction ․ the plaintiff ․ may commence a new action ․ for the same cause at any time within one year after the determination of the original action or after the reversal of the judgment.

Connecticut General Statutes § 52–592 further provides:

(d) The provisions of this section shall apply ․ to any action between the same parties or the legal representatives of either of them for the same cause of action or subject of action brought to any court in this state, either before dismissal of the original action and its affirmance or within one year after the dismissal and affirmance, and to any action brought to the United States circuit or district court for the district of Connecticut which has been dismissed without trial upon its merits or because of lack of jurisdiction in such court.   If such action is within the jurisdiction of any state court, the time for bringing the action to the state court shall commence from the date of dismissal in the United States court, or, if an appeal or writ of error has been taken from the dismissal, from the final determination of the appeal or writ of error.

DISCUSSION

“Any defendant, wishing to contest the court's jurisdiction, may do so even after having entered a general appearance, but must do so by filing a motion to dismiss within thirty days of the filing of an appearance.”  Practice Book § 10–30.  “A motion to dismiss ․ properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court ․ A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618, 627, 941 A.2d 266 (2008).   In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court is required to indulge “every presumption favoring jurisdiction,” Fedus v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 278 Conn. 751, 778 (2006).

The Plaintiff brought suit within ninety days of receiving his release of jurisdiction letter from the CHRO. The Federal Court did dismiss said lawsuit and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

This court is required to indulge “every presumption favoring jurisdiction.”   Fedus v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 278 Conn. 751, 778 (2006).

This court finds the filing of the CFEPA action in federal court with supplemental state claims included satisfies the statutory ninety-day requirement.

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Fischer, Brian T., J.