149 Conn. App. 350
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Andrew Cimmino, former elementary school principal, alleged tortious interference with contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on actions by state attorneys Christina Ghio (Office of the Child Advocate) and Robert Teitelman (Attorney General’s Office).
- Defendants questioned Bridgeport superintendent John Ramos during a statutorily authorized joint investigation into how school districts respond to child-abuse allegations; Ramos subsequently took actions that led to investigations, administrative leave, and ultimately termination/recertification delay for Cimmino.
- Cimmino sued Ghio and Teitelman in their individual capacities seeking compensatory and punitive damages (counts 7–10 of the eighth amended complaint).
- Defendants moved to dismiss those counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing sovereign immunity (and alternatively statutory immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165).
- The trial court denied dismissal, finding (inter alia) that the defendants were sued individually, had allegedly exceeded statutory authority, and that § 4-165 did not apply to intentional/willful conduct. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether action is effectively against the state (Somers/Spring four‑part test) | Cimmino: sued defendants in individual capacities; alleged they exceeded statutory authority, so suit is not against the state | Defendants: although named individually, their investigatory acts were performed as state officials in a statutorily authorized joint investigation; the state is the real party in interest | Court: All four Somers/Spring criteria satisfied — action is effectively against the state; sovereign immunity applies |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars money damages for alleged wrongful conduct by state officials | Cimmino: seeks damages for alleged extra‑statutory, wrongful conduct — not barred | Defendants: plaintiff’s damages arise from official‑capacity acts; suit would control state activities and subject state to liability | Court: Plaintiff sought money damages for harms caused by defendants performing official duties; no statutory waiver or applicable exception; claim barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether alleged excess of statutory authority removes sovereign immunity | Cimmino: alleges defendants acted beyond statutory authority when they pressured Ramos | Defendants: their questioning of Ramos was part of an authorized joint investigation into district responses; conduct fell within official duties | Court: Conduct was within scope of the statutorily authorized investigation; allegation insufficient to place the case within the narrow excess‑of‑authority exception |
| Whether statutory immunity under § 4-165 needed resolution | Cimmino: § 4-165 inapplicable to intentional/willful conduct alleged | Defendants: alternatively argued for protection under § 4-165 | Court: Did not reach § 4-165 because sovereign immunity disposal was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Somers v. Hill, 143 Conn. 476 (establishes four‑part test to determine when a suit against an official is effectively against the state)
- Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn. 563 (explains and applies Somers four‑part test)
- Chief Information Officer v. Computers Plus Center, Inc., 310 Conn. 60 (sovereign immunity concerns subject matter jurisdiction; suits against officers may be suits against the state)
- Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301 (procedural standards for review of motions to dismiss; appeals of colorable sovereign immunity denials are immediately appealable)
- Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134 (addresses interplay of sovereign immunity and statutory immunity doctrines)