534 F.Supp.3d 196
D. Conn.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Michael Amato and Joy Monsanto and their business 50’s Lounge, LLC challenged Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont’s March 2020 COVID-19 executive orders that limited social gatherings and required restaurants to serve for off‑premises consumption.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily closed the restaurant on March 15, 2020, later alleged they could not reopen without violating the orders, and claimed approximately $5,000/week in lost revenue.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal constitutional claims: First Amendment assembly and association, Due Process/right to pursue a living, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment takings; they also pleaded related Connecticut constitutional claims.
- The court denied Plaintiffs’ TRO/PI motion in May 2020; Governor Lamont moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The court held: prospective relief was not moot under voluntary‑cessation doctrine; official‑capacity damages were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; most standing and substantive federal claims failed; state constitutional claims were dismissed without prejudice for the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of injunctive/declaratory relief | Orders caused ongoing prospective harm; relief still needed | Orders were superseded/relaxed so claims are moot | Not moot: voluntary cessation exception applies because State cannot show no reasonable expectation of recurrence |
| Official‑capacity damages (Eleventh Amendment) | Governor liable for money damages for constitutional violations | Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against state officials in their official capacity | Dismissed: official‑capacity monetary claims barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Article III standing | Plaintiffs suffered concrete, particularized harms (lost income; inability to operate) and First Amendment injury | Lack of particularized First Amendment injury; LLC/individual standing distinctions; financial harms belong to LLC | Limited standing: corporate injuries belong to LLC; individuals lack standing for corporate financial claims; First Amendment injuries not adequately pleaded |
| First Amendment (assembly/association) | Orders unlawfully restricted assembly and expressive association with customers/friends | Plaintiffs did not allege expressive conduct; orders are content‑neutral public‑health measures | Dismissed: no facts showing protected expressive activity; even if protected, restrictions were content‑neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny |
| Substantive due process — right to pursue a living | Orders unreasonably burden Plaintiffs’ liberty to engage in their occupation | Regulations were temporary and did not completely prohibit the occupation; subject to reasonable regulation | Dismissed: temporary/restrictive measures do not amount to deprivation protected by substantive due process |
| Takings (regulatory) | Orders so restricted use that they effected a regulatory taking depriving LLC of economically reasonable use | Not a categorical taking; Penn Central factors (economic impact, investment‑backed expectations, character) weigh against a taking; action was police‑power public‑health regulation | Dismissed: no categorical taking and Penn Central balancing disfavors finding a taking |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts accept well‑pleaded facts but not legal conclusions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (voluntary cessation mootness doctrine)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (traditional constitutional scrutiny applies to certain COVID limits on religious gatherings)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (Penn Central balancing test for regulatory takings)
- Tahoe‑Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (categorical takings require total deprivation)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) (Takings Clause prevents appropriation without compensation)
- Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974) (test for expressive conduct)
- Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (expressive association requires group engaged in protected expression)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (distinguishes content‑based vs content‑neutral restrictions)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time, place, manner restrictions: intermediate scrutiny)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (availability of damages preserves live case or controversy)