Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London
135 Conn. App. 167
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC challenges the City of New London’s Fort Trumbull development plan and its storm water system via declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The action originated from a prior case where the plaintiff lacked standing, but the Connecticut Supreme Court remanded on venue and standing, transferring proceedings to Hartford.
- Plaintiff’s July 2009 amended complaint alleged environmental harm from the plan and storm water system; defendants moved to dismiss under Practice Book § 15-8 after the plaintiff rested.
- The trial court granted the § 15-8 dismissal, finding no evidence of causation or proximate cause linking defendants to environmental harm.
- The plaintiff sought reconsideration, reargument, or to open the judgment, which the court denied; plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not apply an incorrect legal standard and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation under § 22a-17.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 15-8 dismissal standard was correctly applied. | Plaintiff contends the court misapplied the prima facie standard. | Defendants argue trial court correctly weighed the evidence and burden of proof. | Yes; court did not apply an incorrect standard. |
| Whether the plaintiff proved causation under § 22a-17. | Plaintiff claims the burden is minimal with proof of probable pollution around the system. | Defendants assert proof must show that conduct very likely caused not de minimis pollution. | No; plaintiff failed to show the required causal link to unreasonable pollution. |
| Whether the court properly denied postjudgment motions (reconsideration, reargument, open judgment, add evidence). | Plaintiff argues for relief due to misapplication of standards and opportunity to present more evidence. | Defendants contend denials were proper and consistent with judicial economy. | Yes; no abuse of discretion found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cadle Co. v. D'Addario, 268 Conn. 441, 844 A.2d 836 (2004) (trial court as fact finder weighs credibility; burden on plaintiff in § 15-8 dismissal)
- Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 800 A.2d 1102 (2002) (burden under § 22a-17; need for causation evidence not de minimis impairment)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 282 Conn. 791, 925 A.2d 292 (2007) (venue/standing issue; action not moot; remanded for proceedings)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 266 Conn. 338, 832 A.2d 611 (2003) (earlier environmental planning challenges informing standard)
- Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Rocque, 267 Conn. 116, 836 A.2d 414 (2003) (unreasonable pollution standard under environmental act)
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170, 972 A.2d 228 (2009) (expert testimony necessity for technical issues)
- Friends of Animals, Inc. v. United Illuminating Co., 124 Conn. App. 823, 6 A.3d 1180 (2010) (discusses standard for § 15-8 analysis in context)