151 Conn.App. 246
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Daniel Henderson, former co-owner/operator of the "2041 Club" (an adult business), was a defendant in a 2009 state nuisance-abatement action alleging illegal activity; the parties entered a stipulated judgment that closed the club and restricted future use and conveyance.
- The stipulated judgment (signed by Henderson and Assistant State’s Attorney Ilana Cathcart) barred Henderson from operating at the premises, allowed sale only to a preapproved purchaser, and retained the Superior Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.
- Henderson later sold the property by warranty deed to a buyer (Daenekindt) who intended to operate an adult business; after approval processes, the buyer alleged the state later declared the adult use invalid, withheld payment, and sued Henderson for misrepresentation.
- Henderson sued the State and Cathcart (official and individual capacity claims) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to allow adult use and alleging breach of contract and various torts; he waived money damages at the dismissal hearing.
- The trial court granted the State and Cathcart’s motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity, prosecutorial immunity, and prior-pending-action grounds without an evidentiary hearing; Henderson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars Henderson’s suit against the State/Cathcart | Henderson contends the suit challenges Cathcart’s representations and seeks enforcement/relief that defeat immunity | State argues the suit is effectively against the State because Cathcart acted in her official capacity; sovereign immunity deprives jurisdiction | Court held Spring/Somers factors met; suit is effectively against the State and sovereign immunity bars it |
| Whether exception to sovereign immunity applies (official acted beyond statutory authority or pursuant to unconstitutional statute) | Henderson asserts out-of-court oral promises (preapproval to allow future adult use) and alleges due process/equal protection violations | State contends Henderson failed to plead facts showing Cathcart acted beyond statutory authority or under an unconstitutional statute | Court held Henderson failed to plead facts supporting that exception; dismissal proper |
| Whether Cathcart is individually liable or protected by absolute/prosecutorial immunity | Henderson sued Cathcart personally for alleged misrepresentations; argues breach of agreement | State contends Cathcart acted in performance of prosecutorial duties and is immune; also argues claims against her are official-capacity only | Court concluded claims were official-capacity (state is real party) and Cathcart was entitled to immunity; sovereign immunity dispositive |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing before dismissal | Henderson argues he was entitled to present witnesses and evidence before dismissal | State notes jurisdictional question; court found no factual dispute requiring hearing | Court declined to review (issue inadequately briefed) and noted no requirement for evidentiary hearing where jurisdictional determination does not hinge on factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Somers v. Hill, 143 Conn. 476 (test for when suit against official is effectively against the state)
- Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn. 563 (application/explication of Somers test)
- Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301 (exception to sovereign immunity for officers acting beyond statutory authority or under unconstitutional statute)
- Columbia Air Servs., Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342 (narrow construction of sovereign immunity exceptions; pleading requirements)
- Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186 (discussion of sovereign immunity’s purpose and exceptions)
- Tuchman v. State, 89 Conn. App. 745 (sovereign immunity protects state and its officers from suits for acts performed in duty)