Abel Osagie v. Gloria Ramos et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (# 120)

The plaintiff, Abel Osagie (“Osagie”), commenced this action by complaint dated June 1, 2012, in which he sought monetary damages and injunctive relief against the defendants Gloria Ramos (“Ramos”), Jack R. Goldberg (“Goldberg”) and the Second Injury Fund—Third–Party Insurers (“the Fund”).

On January 2, 2013, the motion of defendants Goldberg and the Fund to dismiss the complaint as to them was granted by the court (Ozalis, J.) for the reasons that the plaintiff did not have the requisite standing to bring this action, that the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies and that his claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The defendant Ramos filed this motion to dismiss Counts One through Four of the June 1, 2012 complaint as they relate to her—specifically, fraudulent/intentional misrepresentation (Counts One and Four), negligent misrepresentation (Count Two) and negligence (Count Three).   The movant has argued that, as the court previously found in regard to Goldberg and the Fund, the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that he lacks the requisite standing to bring this action.

On January 16, 2013, while this motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint which, in effect, abandoned all claims against Goldberg and the actions of the Fund. In his amended complaint, Osagie purports to seek damages and other relief against the defendant Ramos, alone, for damages and losses he personally sustained as a result of her alleged conduct.   No longer is there any issue regarding the propriety of the actions of Goldberg or the Board.   In addition, Osagie now seeks to proceed as an employee of CareOne but not as an investor and his losses are alleged to be personal and not derivative in nature.

The defendant Ramos filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint arguing that this action, which the plaintiff now seeks to amend, should be dismissed for lack of standing prior to any attempt to amend it to adopt new allegations against her.   The court agrees.

As Judge Sheila Ozalis found in her January 2, 2013 memorandum of decision regarding the motion to dismiss filed by Ramos' co-defendants, Jack Goldberg and the Second Injury Fund, the plaintiff lacks standing to have brought this action.   As pleaded, it is an action by Osagie, as a self-represented party, seeking damages and other relief for claims which are unique to CareOne Health Services, LLC and not to Osagie personally.   In her opinion, Judge Oszalis found that the issue of standing implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for the granting of a motion to dismiss, citing St. George v. Gordon, 264 Conn. 538 (2003).   She went on to find that based on the allegations in his complaint, the plaintiff was neither classically nor statutorily aggrieved and that he lacked the requisite standing to bring this action.   That was one of the reasons she granted the motion to dismiss filed by the co-defendants.

The movant, Ramos, has raised the identical standing issue in her motion to dismiss.  “If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause.”  Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 282 Conn. 791, 802 (2007).

“[A] court must have jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction once that has been put in issue.”  Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Southbury, 231 Conn. 563, 570–71 (1995).

The court cannot grant any relief to the plaintiff, including a ruling on his motion to amend the complaint, if he does not have the requisite standing to have brought the case in the first place.

The law of this case, as set forth in Judge Ozalis' decision, is that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this suit.   That precludes any action by the court as to the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Ramos is hereby granted.   The request to amend the complaint is rendered moot.

BY THE COURT,

JOSEPH W. DOHERTY, JUDGE

Doherty, Joseph W., J.