170 Conn. App. 631
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Izzo (doing business as New Haven Drywall) filed to foreclose a mechanic's lien against Quinn's property, alleging nonpayment under a home-improvement contract.
- Quinn answered, raised special defenses (including that he contracted with North Haven Drywall, LLC, not Izzo personally) and filed a four‑count counterclaim against Izzo asserting breach, CUTPA claims, fraud/misrepresentations, and negligence arising from work performed under North Haven Drywall, LLC.
- Izzo sought substitution of North Haven Drywall d/b/a N.H.D. as plaintiff; Quinn objected and moved to dismiss Izzo's complaint for lack of standing; the court granted that motion and Izzo's underlying complaint was dismissed.
- Izzo then moved to dismiss or strike Quinn’s counterclaim on the ground that North Haven Drywall, LLC, was a necessary/indispensable party; the trial court granted the motion and later entered judgment dismissing the counterclaim.
- Quinn filed to amend his counterclaim; on appeal he argued the court erred by dismissing for nonjoinder because (1) the LLC was not a jurisdictional prerequisite and (2) nonjoinder should be addressed by motion to strike (per rules), not dismissal.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding failure to join an indispensable or necessary party does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissal on that ground was improper; the case was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to join North Haven Drywall, LLC, deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction | Izzo: counterclaim is really against the LLC; nonjoinder of an indispensable party requires dismissal | Quinn: nonjoinder of necessary/indispensable party is not jurisdictional and should be remedied by motion to strike or by adding parties | Held: Nonjoinder here did not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction; dismissal on that ground was improper |
| Proper procedural vehicle for nonjoinder | Izzo: sought dismissal (or striking) of counterclaim for absence of necessary party | Quinn: motion to strike is the exclusive remedy for nonjoinder; dismissal was improper and amendment should be allowed | Held: Exclusive remedy for nonjoinder/misjoinder is motion to strike; court should not have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Standard of review for motion to dismiss raising jurisdictional defects | Izzo: argued court properly found jurisdiction lacking based on record | Quinn: pointed to precedent that statutory joinder requirements are necessary to create jurisdictional defects | Held: Court reviews de novo; only statutory requirement to name a particular party creates jurisdictional defect — absent that, nonjoinder is not jurisdictional |
| Effect of § 52-108 and Practice Book provisions on nonjoinder | Izzo: nonjoinder warranted dismissal in equity of the case as pleaded | Quinn: statutory and Practice Book provisions (e.g., § 52-108, § 9-19, §10-39) allow adding parties and provide motion to strike as remedy | Held: General Statutes § 52-108 and Practice Book rules prevent defeat of action for nonjoinder; remedy is motion to strike or joinder, not dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Genesis Ltd. Partnership, 167 Conn.App. 183 (Conn. App. 2016) (standard and approach for jurisdictional review of motion to dismiss)
- Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 413 (Conn. 1987) (statutory requirement to serve town clerk made nonjoinder jurisdictional)
- Hilton v. New Haven, 233 Conn. 701 (Conn. 1995) (failure to join state as indispensable party did not deprive subject matter jurisdiction; court may order joinder)
- Fountain Pointe, LLC v. Calpitano, 144 Conn.App. 624 (Conn. App. 2013) (nonjoinder remedy is motion to strike; does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction)
- Yellow Cab Co. v. Dept. of Transportation, 127 Conn.App. 170 (Conn. App. 2011) (distinguishing statutory mandatory joinder from ordinary indispensable-party issues)
- Pecan v. Madigan, 97 Conn.App. 617 (Conn. App. 2006) (difference between motion to dismiss and motion to strike)