2006 Survey of Developments in Civil Litigation
| Publication year | 2021 |
| Pages | 123 |
81 CBJ 123. 2006 SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL LITIGATION
Volume 81, No. 2
June 2007
This survey reports on developments in civil litigation, particularly in the areas of civil procedure and contracts. Developments in torts are surveyed in a separate article.
A. Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court continues to dispose of a significant number of cases before it on the basis that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action or the parties, for a variety of reasons.
Several opinions address whether a plaintiff has an interest sufficient to establish standing to bring an action. In one long-running dispute, the Court in West Farms Mall, LLC v. Town of West Hartford(fn1) held that taxpayer status would not support standing absent a showing that the expenditure would result in an increase in the plaintiff's taxes or a misappropriation of funds. In a decision pertaining to serial killer Michael Ross, the Court held in Missionary Society of Connecticut v. Board of Pardons and Paroles(fn2) that a religious association lacked standing to compel the defendant to adopt regulations controlling the commutation of death sentences. Parents have standing to assert that their children were deprived of the constitutional right to conflict-free representation in a parental termination proceeding, under the standards for standing set forth in In re Christina M.(fn3)
Two cases discuss whether the interests of lessees, or almost lessees, will support standing. In Wesley v. SchallerSubaru, Inc.,(fn4) the Court held that a lessee had standing
to seek reformation of a lease to include an additional lessee, thereby forcing the lessor to accept obligations in favor of the additional lessee, even though the lessor could potentially seek reimbursement from the additional lessee. In Moutinhov. Planning & Zoning Commission,(fn5) the Court held that an oral agreement to enter a lease created a sufficient interest in the potential lessee to appeal a zoning ruling.
Additional cases address whether a party has standing to intervene in an action. In AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning Commission of Town of Stratford,(fn6) a split Court held that the citizen intervention provision of the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act permits a town to intervene before its own zoning commission. A public interest organization seeking to intervene in order to advocate against same-sex marriage did not fare as well in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health,(fn7) in which the Court held that the issue had no adequate effect on the members of the organization to support intervention as of right and further upheld the discretion of the lower court to deny permissive intervention. The Court further clarified that standing is to be determined on the basis of the claims, without the use of testimony or other evidence.
A number of cases address the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts, continuing a general trend toward an expansive view of subject matter jurisdiction, even if other doctrines may limit the power of the court to act. For example, in Fedusv. Planning & Zoning Commission,(fn8) the Court held that improper execution of a writ or citation may compromise personal jurisdiction, but does not affect the lower court's subject matter jurisdiction. Similarly, the failure to name an indispensable party in an election case did not affect subject matter jurisdiction in Bauer v. Souto.(fn9) In McBurney v. Cirillo,(fn10) the Court concluded that the failure to notify inter
ested parties does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower court; a later decision reversed that portion of McBurney holding that, although the lower court had subject matter jurisdiction, it lacked the power to enter a judgment.(fn11) In Reiner, Reiner and Bendett, PC v. The Cadle Co.,(fn12) the Court held that a forum selection clause implicates neither subject matter jurisdiction nor personal jurisdiction; a party must appear and assert the clause in order to enforce it.
By contrast, in Commissioner of Transportation v. RockyMountain, LLC,(fn13) the Court confirmed that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies does implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts. The Court similarly concluded that a planning and zoning commission lacks jurisdiction over an application when the applicant's notice fails to describe the property adequately in City of Bridgeport v. Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield.(fn14)
Four decisions discuss whether a claim is moot. In PrivateHealthcare Systems, Inc. v. Torres,(fn15) the Court held that an appeal from an arbitration decision reinstating a doctor is mooted by the doctor's voluntary resignation. The opposite result was reached in Cox v. Aiken,(fn16) in which the Court held that collateral consequences, namely the right to interim benefits, supported the conclusion that reinstatement of an employee did not moot his claim that his removal was improper. Collateral consequences also prevented the expiration of a six-moth domestic violence restraining order from mooting an appeal of that order in Putnam v. Kennedy.(fn17) In Lichtman v. Beni,(fn18) the Court confirmed the general observa
tion that the inability to provide practical relief will render a claim moot.
B. Pleading/Motion Practice
In Vertex, Inc. v. Waterbury,(fn19) the Court found error in the trial court's sua sponte dismissal of certain of the plaintiff's claims prior to trial. Although not explicitly framed in terms of due process, the Court noted that legal insufficiency should be determined in response to a pending motion, a motion to strike or a motion for summary judgment.
Two cases are noteworthy in upholding a broad use of motions to strike. In Violano v. Fernandez,(fn20) the Court determined that it was proper to decide an issue of immunity in response to a motion to strike without requiring the allegation of a special defense or permitting discovery that might help a plaintiff to articulate the facts necessary to avoid the claim of immunity. The Court in Sullivan v. Lake Compounce ThemePark(fn21) upheld a trial court order striking a claim by an employee against his employer based on the workers' compensation exclusive remedy rule, holding that the allegations were insufficient to satisfy the requirement that the employer knew that its conduct was substantially certain to cause injury.
In Morgenbesser v. Aquarion Water Co. of Connecticut,(fn22) the Court upheld the granting of summary judgment enforcing a restrictive covenant, holding that summary judgment is proper on a contract where the language of the contract is clear. Summary judgment procedure was also addressed in Doe v. Petersen,(fn23) in which the Court held that a lower court is obligated to decide only one dispositive issue supporting summary judgment and need not address other issues. In Deming v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,(fn24) the Court applied the rules relating to the relation back of amendments to pleadings, upholding relation back and finding questions of fact
that defeated summary judgment in a claim by insurance agents against an insurer. In Vitale v. Zoning Board of Appeals,(fn25) the Court decided, in the context of a motion for summary judgment, that the saving statute applies to permit reinstatement of defective zoning appeals.
Two cases address the use of a writ of mandamus. In Jalowiec Realty Associates, LP v. Planning & Zoning Commission,(fn26) the Court upheld the granting of a writ where the plaintiff had a clear legal right to a mandatory duty and no other legal remedy. The Court noted that relief must also be equitable, a requirement mirrored in Morris v. Congdon,(fn27) in which the Court reiterated that the writ is an extraordinary remedy committed to the sound discretion of the court.
In Stone-Krete Construction, Inc. v. Eder,(fn28) the Court held that the requirement that a mechanic's lien be "subscribed and sworn to" is satisfied by a signature and a notary's documentation that an oath was given, without an affidavit or other articulation of the oath.
Finally, in Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp.,(fn29) the Court found error in the lower court's granting of class certification without a full investigation into the facts necessary to support the decision and where the available facts did not support the factors necessary to establish certification.
C. Statutory Interpretation
A number of cases contrasted when a court may and may not look outside statutory language in order to interpret a statute's meaning. In Colangelo v. Heckelman,(fn30) for example, the Court rejected language in a prior opinion and held that the statutory fellow employee exception to the exclusive remedy rule in motor vehicle cases permits no limitation based on the circumstances of the motor vehicle's operation. In Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.,(fn31) the Court refused to look to legislative history in making the distinction
between procedural statutes such as statutes of limitations that apply retroactively and substantive statutes that usually do not. The decision in Mortgage Electronic RegistrationSystems, Inc. v. White(fn32) stands for the proposition that a statute should be held to change the common law only to the extent specifically provided.
By contrast, the Court held in Asylum Hill ProblemSolving Revitalization Association v. King(fn33) that the rule prohibiting recourse to information outside the language of the statute does not apply at all when the question is whether to imply a cause of action from a Connecticut statute. The rule was not used in Graff v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of...
To continue reading
Request your trial