sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction doctrine in Connecticut

2002Corp. v. Peabody, N.E., Inc ., 239 Conn. 93 , 99 , 680 A.2d 1321 (1996) (holding that the trial court erred in considering the amended complaint after the state had filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of sovereign immunity). "[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss. . . .

2002Corp. v. Peabody, N.E., Inc ., 239 Conn. 93 , 99 , 680 A.2d 1321 (1996) (holding that the trial court erred in considering the amended complaint after the state had filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of sovereign immunity). "[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss. . . .

2001The plaintiff now moves to strike the first, second, fourth, and fifth special defense as well as defendant's answer to Count one, paragraph three that states "that it is a sovereign nation." DISCUSSION A. STANDARD CT Page 9184 "[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.) Novicki v. City of New Haven, 47 Conn. App. 734 , 739 , 709 A.2d 2 (1998).

2001The plaintiff now moves to strike the first, second, fourth, and fifth special defense as well as defendant's answer to Count one, paragraph three that states "that it is a sovereign nation." DISCUSSION A. STANDARD CT Page 9184 "[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.) Novicki v. City of New Haven, 47 Conn. App. 734 , 739 , 709 A.2d 2 (1998).

2002A motion to dismiss shall be used to assert lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 544 , 590 A.2d 914 (1991). “[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.) Antinerella v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479, 489 , 642 A.2d 699 (1994); Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 25

2002A motion to dismiss shall be used to assert lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 544 , 590 A.2d 914 (1991). “[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.) Antinerella v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479, 489 , 642 A.2d 699 (1994); Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 25

2001"The motion to dismiss shall be used to assert (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sadloski v. Manchester , 235 Conn. 637 , 645-46 n. 13, 668 A.2d 1314 (1995). "[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) Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Peabody, N.E., Inc ., 239 Conn. 93 , 99 , 680 A.2d 1321 (1996).

2001"The motion to dismiss shall be used to assert (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sadloski v. Manchester , 235 Conn. 637 , 645-46 n. 13, 668 A.2d 1314 (1995). "[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) Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Peabody, N.E., Inc ., 239 Conn. 93 , 99 , 680 A.2d 1321 (1996).

2011In any event, because “[t]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 294 Conn. 695, 706 , 987 A.2d 348 (2010); the issue is properly before this court; Figueroa v. C & S Ball Bearing, 237 Conn. 1, 4 , 675 A.2d 845 (1996); and, accordingly, we must address it. 10 With regard to the trial court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the plaintiff argues on appeal that pursuing remedies with the department wo

2011In any event, because “[t]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 294 Conn. 695, 706 , 987 A.2d 348 (2010); the issue is properly before this court; Figueroa v. C & S Ball Bearing, 237 Conn. 1, 4 , 675 A.2d 845 (1996); and, accordingly, we must address it. 10 With regard to the trial court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the plaintiff argues on appeal that pursuing remedies with the department wo

2002Such motion asserts that "the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gurliacci v. Mayer , 218 Conn. 531 , 544 , 590 A.2d 914 (1991). "[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.) Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc ., 260 Conn. 46 , 51-52 , ___ A.2d ___ (2002). "[S]ince the state can act only through its officers and agents a suit against a s

2002Such motion asserts that "the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gurliacci v. Mayer , 218 Conn. 531 , 544 , 590 A.2d 914 (1991). "[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.) Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc ., 260 Conn. 46 , 51-52 , ___ A.2d ___ (2002). "[S]ince the state can act only through its officers and agents a suit against a s

2002A motion to dismiss shall be used to assert lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 544 , 590 A.2d 914 (1991). “[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.) Antinerella v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479, 489 , 642 A.2d 699 (1994); Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 25

2002A motion to dismiss shall be used to assert lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 544 , 590 A.2d 914 (1991). “[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.) Antinerella v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479, 489 , 642 A.2d 699 (1994); Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 25

1998Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483, 492-93 , 400 A.2d 726 (1978). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.” Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358, 364 , 636 A.2d 786 (1994), citing Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 349-50 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994); Tamm v. Burns, 222 Conn. 280, 289 , 610 A.2d 590 (1992); Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 185-86 , 592 A.2d 912 (1991).

1998Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483, 492-93 , 400 A.2d 726 (1978). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.” Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358, 364 , 636 A.2d 786 (1994), citing Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 349-50 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994); Tamm v. Burns, 222 Conn. 280, 289 , 610 A.2d 590 (1992); Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 185-86 , 592 A.2d 912 (1991).

2002"The motion to dismiss like a motion to erase admits all facts which are well pleaded, invokes the existing record and must be decided upon that alone." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barde v. Board of Trustees, 207 Conn. 59 , 62 , 539 A.2d 1000 (1988); see also Ferreira v. Pringle , 255 Conn. 330 , 346 , 766 A.2d 400 (2001). "[A]lthough allegations of fact are to be read broadly in favor of the plaintiff, allegations that state conclusions of law are not given such presumptive validity" Shay v. Rossi , 253 Conn. 134 , 141 , 749 A.2d 1147 (2000). "[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity impl

2002"The motion to dismiss like a motion to erase admits all facts which are well pleaded, invokes the existing record and must be decided upon that alone." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barde v. Board of Trustees, 207 Conn. 59 , 62 , 539 A.2d 1000 (1988); see also Ferreira v. Pringle , 255 Conn. 330 , 346 , 766 A.2d 400 (2001). "[A]lthough allegations of fact are to be read broadly in favor of the plaintiff, allegations that state conclusions of law are not given such presumptive validity" Shay v. Rossi , 253 Conn. 134 , 141 , 749 A.2d 1147 (2000). "[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity impl

2013We review the relevant legal standards. “[B]ecause [a] determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Haworth v. Dieffenbach, 133 Conn. App. 773, 779 , 38 A.3d 1203 (2012). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore abasis for granting a motion to dismiss.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cox v. Aiken, 278 Conn. 204, 211 , 897 A.2d 71 (2006).

2013We review the relevant legal standards. “[B]ecause [a] determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Haworth v. Dieffenbach, 133 Conn. App. 773, 779 , 38 A.3d 1203 (2012). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore abasis for granting a motion to dismiss.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cox v. Aiken, 278 Conn. 204, 211 , 897 A.2d 71 (2006).

1998Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483, 492-93 , 400 A.2d 726 (1978). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.” Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358, 364 , 636 A.2d 786 (1994), citing Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 349-50 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994); Tamm v. Burns, 222 Conn. 280, 289 , 610 A.2d 590 (1992); Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 185-86 , 592 A.2d 912 (1991).

1998Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483, 492-93 , 400 A.2d 726 (1978). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.” Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358, 364 , 636 A.2d 786 (1994), citing Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 349-50 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994); Tamm v. Burns, 222 Conn. 280, 289 , 610 A.2d 590 (1992); Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 185-86 , 592 A.2d 912 (1991).

2022A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. . . . [O]ur review of the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [decision to] grant . . . the motion to dismiss will be de novo. . . . [T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342 , 346–47, 977 A.2d 636 (2009). ‘‘Sovereign immunity relates to a court’s sub

2022A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. . . . [O]ur review of the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [decision to] grant . . . the motion to dismiss will be de novo. . . . [T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342 , 346–47, 977 A.2d 636 (2009). ‘‘Sovereign immunity relates to a court’s sub

2019Practice Book § 10-30 (a) (1). "[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.) Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works , 294 Conn. 695 , 706, 987 A.2d 348 (2010). "[O]ur review of the trial court's ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [denial] of the motion to dismiss [is] de novo." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2019Practice Book § 10-30 (a) (1). "[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.) Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works , 294 Conn. 695 , 706, 987 A.2d 348 (2010). "[O]ur review of the trial court's ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [denial] of the motion to dismiss [is] de novo." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2002"The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter CT Page 16063 jurisdiction, whenever and however raised." Fink v. Golenbock , 238 Conn. 183 , 199 n. 13, 680 A.2d 1243 (1996).

2002"The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter CT Page 16063 jurisdiction, whenever and however raised." Fink v. Golenbock , 238 Conn. 183 , 199 n. 13, 680 A.2d 1243 (1996).

1998Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483, 492-93 , 400 A.2d 726 (1978). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.” Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358, 364 , 636 A.2d 786 (1994), citing Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 349-50 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994); Tamm v. Burns, 222 Conn. 280, 289 , 610 A.2d 590 (1992); Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 185-86 , 592 A.2d 912 (1991).

1998Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483, 492-93 , 400 A.2d 726 (1978). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.” Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358, 364 , 636 A.2d 786 (1994), citing Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 349-50 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994); Tamm v. Burns, 222 Conn. 280, 289 , 610 A.2d 590 (1992); Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 185-86 , 592 A.2d 912 (1991).

1999"A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction." Upson v. State , 190 Conn. 622 , 624 , 461 A.2d 991 (1983). "[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.) Federal Deposit Ins.

1999"A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction." Upson v. State , 190 Conn. 622 , 624 , 461 A.2d 991 (1983). "[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.) Federal Deposit Ins.

1998Practice Book § 145. "[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss." Antinerella v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479 , 489 , 642 A.2d 699 (1994), quoting Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358 , 364 , 636 A.2d 786 (1994), see also Dugay v. Hopkins, 191 Conn. 222 , 227 , 464 A.2d 45 (1983); Lemoine v. McCann, 40 Conn. App. 460 , 468 , A.2d (1996); Herzig v. Horrigan, 34 Conn. App. 816 , 820 , 644 A.2d 360 (1994).

1998Practice Book § 145. "[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss." Antinerella v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479 , 489 , 642 A.2d 699 (1994), quoting Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358 , 364 , 636 A.2d 786 (1994), see also Dugay v. Hopkins, 191 Conn. 222 , 227 , 464 A.2d 45 (1983); Lemoine v. McCann, 40 Conn. App. 460 , 468 , A.2d (1996); Herzig v. Horrigan, 34 Conn. App. 816 , 820 , 644 A.2d 360 (1994).

2024If, however, the defendant submits either no proof to rebut the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations . . . or only evidence that fails to call those allegations into question . . . the plaintiff need not supply counteraffidavits or other evi- dence to support the complaint, but may rest on the jurisdictional allegations therein.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cuozzo v. Orange, 315 Conn. 606 , 615–16, 109 A.3d 903 (2015). ‘‘[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.’’ (Internal

2024If, however, the defendant submits either no proof to rebut the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations . . . or only evidence that fails to call those allegations into question . . . the plaintiff need not supply counteraffidavits or other evi- dence to support the complaint, but may rest on the jurisdictional allegations therein.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cuozzo v. Orange, 315 Conn. 606 , 615–16, 109 A.3d 903 (2015). ‘‘[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.’’ (Internal

2024The doctrine ‘‘rests on the principle and on the hazard that the subjec- tion of the state and federal governments to private litigation might constitute a serious interference with the performance of their functions and with their con- trol over their respective instrumentalities, funds and property.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hicks v. State, 297 Conn. 798, 807 , 1 A.3d 39 (2010). ‘‘[I]n its pristine form the doctrine of sovereign immu- nity would exempt the state from suit entirely . . . because the sovereign could not be sued in its own courts and there can be no legal right as a

2024The doctrine ‘‘rests on the principle and on the hazard that the subjec- tion of the state and federal governments to private litigation might constitute a serious interference with the performance of their functions and with their con- trol over their respective instrumentalities, funds and property.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hicks v. State, 297 Conn. 798, 807 , 1 A.3d 39 (2010). ‘‘[I]n its pristine form the doctrine of sovereign immu- nity would exempt the state from suit entirely . . . because the sovereign could not be sued in its own courts and there can be no legal right as a

2010“It is a well-established rule of the common law that a state cannot be sued without its consent.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 263 Conn. 74, 78 , 818 A.2d 758 (2003).

2010“It is a well-established rule of the common law that a state cannot be sued without its consent.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 263 Conn. 74, 78 , 818 A.2d 758 (2003).

2009A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the *347 face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. . . . [O]ur review of the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [decision to] grant . . . the motion to dismiss will be de novo.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Haight, 279 Conn. 546, 550 , 903 A.2d 217 (2006). “[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.) Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc., 260 Conn. 46, 51 , 794 A.2d

2009A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the *347 face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. . . . [O]ur review of the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [decision to] grant . . . the motion to dismiss will be de novo.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Haight, 279 Conn. 546, 550 , 903 A.2d 217 (2006). “[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.) Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc., 260 Conn. 46, 51 , 794 A.2d

2005What is the authority that sovereign immunity bars constitutional claims?” The defendant then filed the present appeal, arguing that sovereign immunity bars an action against the state seeking money damages. 1 “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Blumenthal v. Barnes, 261 Conn. 434, 442 , 804 A.2d 152 (2002). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction an

2005What is the authority that sovereign immunity bars constitutional claims?” The defendant then filed the present appeal, arguing that sovereign immunity bars an action against the state seeking money damages. 1 “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Blumenthal v. Barnes, 261 Conn. 434, 442 , 804 A.2d 152 (2002). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction an