Louis Morrison, Jr. v. Gateway Community College (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS (# 105)

FACTS

The self-represented plaintiff in this case, Louis Morrison, Jr. initially filed this action in small claims court against the defendant, Gateway Community College on November 28, 2011.   The plaintiff's service was by certified mail, return receipt upon the Director of Facilities at Gateway Community College located at 60 Sargent Drive, New Haven, Connecticut.   By motion filed on December 19, 2011, by the defendant, the file was transferred to the regular civil docket at the Superior Court in New Haven, judicial district of New Haven on December 21, 2011.

The complaint alleges that the defendant caused damage to a fence surrounding the plaintiff's property by dumping snow on it.   More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that “[d]uring snow removal the school piled [and] dumped snow onto [his] fence [causing] the fence to bend, cave and collapse.”   The plaintiff further alleges that he spoke to the Director of Facilities at the college and received no response.   The plaintiff is seeking money damages in the amount of $1,500.   On January 6, 2012, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the college on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because sovereign immunity bars the claim and, furthermore, because the plaintiff did not obtain permission to file the lawsuit from the state Claims Commissioner.   The plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.   The motion was heard at short calendar on April 9, 2012.   The plaintiff failed to appear.

DISCUSSION

“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.)  Cox v. Aiken, 278 Conn. 204, 210–11, 897 A.2d 71 (2006).  “Pursuant to the rules of practice, a motion to dismiss is the appropriate motion for raising a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”  St. George v. Gordon, 264 Conn. 538, 545, 825 A.2d 90 (2003).  “When a court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light ․ In this regard, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Cox v. Aiken, supra, 278 Conn. 211.  “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Kozlowski v. Commissioner of Transportation, 274 Conn. 497, 501, 876 A.2d 1148 (2005).

The defendants argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim against the college because sovereign immunity affords the state agency protection from claims for money damages unless the claims commissioner has approved the action pursuant to General Statutes §§ 4–142 and 4–147.l “It is a well-established rule of the common law that a state cannot be sued without its consent ․ A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends ․ The practical and logical basis of the doctrine is today recognized to rest on this principle and on the hazard that the subjection of the state and federal governments to private litigation might constitute a serious interference with the performance of their functions and with their control over their respective instrumentalities, funds, and property.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Lyon v. Jones, 104 Conn.App. 547, 552, 935 A.2d 201 (2007).

“As we previously have stated, the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the state is not absolute.   There are exceptions:  (1) when the legislature, either expressly or by force of a necessary implication, statutorily waives the state's sovereign immunity;  ․ (2) when an action seeks declaratory or injunctive relief on the basis of a substantial claim that the state or one of its officers has violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights;  ․ and (3) when an action seeks declaratory or injunctive relief on the basis of a substantial allegation of wrongful conduct to promote an illegal purpose in excess of the officer's statutory authority.”  DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Law, 284 Conn. 701, 720, 937 A.2d 675 (2007).

The plaintiff in this case claims that the defendant caused damage to his property and seeks money damages in the amount of $1,500.   The claim does not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to the sovereign immunity doctrine, nor has the plaintiff obtained or sought permission to seek monetary relief from the Claims Commissioner.   Therefore, the motion to dismiss the claim against Gateway Community College is granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint is granted.

Wilson, J.¹

FOOTNOTES

FN1. General Statutes § 4–142 provides that “[t]here shall be a Claims Commissioner who shall hear and determine all claims against the state except:  (1) Claims for the periodic payment of disability, pension, retirement or other employment benefits;  (2) claims upon which suit otherwise is authorized by law including suits to recover similar relief arising from the same set of facts;  (3) claims for which an administrative hearing procedure otherwise is established by law;  (4) requests by political subdivisions of the state for payment of grants in lieu of taxes;  and (5) claims for the refund of taxes.”General Statutes § 4–147 provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person wishing to present a claim against the state shall file with the Office of the Claims Commissioner a notice of claim, in duplicate, containing the following information:  (1) The name and address of the claimant;  the name and address of his principal, if the claimant is acting in a representative capacity, and the name and address of his attorney, if the claimant is so represented;  (2) a concise statement of the basis of the claim, including the date, time, place and circumstances of the act or event complained of (3) a statement of the amount requested;  and (4) a request for permission to sue the state, if such permission is sought ․.  FN1. General Statutes § 4–142 provides that “[t]here shall be a Claims Commissioner who shall hear and determine all claims against the state except:  (1) Claims for the periodic payment of disability, pension, retirement or other employment benefits;  (2) claims upon which suit otherwise is authorized by law including suits to recover similar relief arising from the same set of facts;  (3) claims for which an administrative hearing procedure otherwise is established by law;  (4) requests by political subdivisions of the state for payment of grants in lieu of taxes;  and (5) claims for the refund of taxes.”General Statutes § 4–147 provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person wishing to present a claim against the state shall file with the Office of the Claims Commissioner a notice of claim, in duplicate, containing the following information:  (1) The name and address of the claimant;  the name and address of his principal, if the claimant is acting in a representative capacity, and the name and address of his attorney, if the claimant is so represented;  (2) a concise statement of the basis of the claim, including the date, time, place and circumstances of the act or event complained of (3) a statement of the amount requested;  and (4) a request for permission to sue the state, if such permission is sought ․

Wilson, Robin L., J.