330 Conn. 681
Conn.2019Background
- Two factions of Connecticut’s Independent Party (Danbury plaintiffs led by Duff; Waterbury defendants led by Telesca and Frank) disputed which bylaws governed statewide nominations: bylaws filed in 2006 (Danbury) vs. 2010 (Waterbury).
- Telesca and Fand collaborated to run Ralph Nader in 2008; Nader received >1% statewide, triggering minor-party status under § 9-372(6). After 2008, Telesca led efforts to draft and publicly notice 2010 statewide bylaws, which were unanimously adopted and filed with the Secretary; no objections were lodged within § 9-374’s 60-day window.
- The 2010 bylaws were used to govern caucuses, nominations, and elections from 2010–2014 without Danbury’s objection; factional conflict resurfaced in 2016 with competing endorsements and filings to the Secretary, which accepted neither competing slate.
- Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the 2006 bylaws control; defendants counterclaimed asserting the 2010 bylaws govern and they are the rightful officers. Trial court found for defendants, held the 2010 bylaws control statewide party procedures, and ordered the Secretary to accept nominations under the 2010 bylaws.
- On appeal plaintiffs raised multiple claims: trial court lost jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. §51-183b for late decision; misinterpretation of §9-374; failure to give preclusive effect to a 2012 preliminary Waterbury decision; erroneous waiver finding; constitutional claims; and abuse of discretion permitting late amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court lose personal jurisdiction by failing to issue a decision within 120 days under §51-183b? | Plaintiffs: their refusal to consent to an extension barred any late judgment; the court’s late reopening deprived it of jurisdiction. | Defendants: trial court ordered supplemental briefing on jurisdiction before the 120-day deadline, which tolled and restarted the statutory period. | Held: Trial court’s order for supplemental briefing (a colorable jurisdictional question) stopped and restarted the 120-day period; decision timely; personal jurisdiction intact. |
| Do the 2010 bylaws control under §9-374 or do the 2006 bylaws govern statewide nominations? | Plaintiffs: §9-374 contains no requirement that bylaws be refilled on achieving minor-party status; 2006 filing should govern. | Defendants: read §9-374 with §9-372(6): minor-party status (and attendant statewide rule obligations) only arises after a candidate obtains 1% statewide; 2010 bylaws filed after 2008 are controlling. | Held: Court construed statutes together and concluded a minor party does not exist for a given office until 1% threshold is met; bylaws filed after that event (2010) govern statewide party procedures. |
| Is the 2012 Waterbury decision preclusive here? | Plaintiffs: 2012 judge held 2006 bylaws valid; that decision is preclusive—same parties, same issue. | Defendants: 2012 decision was an expedited, tentative ruling on a motion for temporary mandamus, not a final merits judgment; thus not preclusive. | Held: 2012 decision was preliminary and tentative; not a final judgment on the merits; no res judicata or collateral estoppel. |
| Did plaintiffs waive right to challenge 2010 bylaws? | Plaintiffs: they continued to act under 2006 bylaws and relied on prior rulings; they did not consent to 2010 changes. | Defendants: plaintiffs—through longstanding participation, signatures, attendance, and lack of timely objection—acquiesced to and used the 2010 bylaws for years. | Held: Trial court’s factual finding of waiver was not clearly erroneous; plaintiffs impliedly accepted and used 2010 bylaws and failed to timely object. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foote v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn. App. 296 (Conn. App. 2010) (late judgment is voidable; parties may waive §51-183b delay).
- Waterman v. United Caribbean, Inc., 215 Conn. 688 (Conn. 1990) (120-day rule and consent analysis for late judgments).
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 302 Conn. 263 (Conn. 2011) (reopening a case during the 120-day period resets the decision clock).
- University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1981) (preliminary injunctive and other expedited rulings are tentative and typically not given preclusive effect).