213 Conn.App. 288
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Eversource and United Illuminating issued a request for bids under the Shared Clean Energy Facility program requiring bidders to show "proof of site control" (ownership, lease, or an unconditional option). PURA must approve any awarded contract.
- FuelCell (through its subsidiary, the company) submitted a winning bid that included an option-to-lease from the city of Derby and an affidavit from the mayor attesting site control; Jefferson Solar also submitted a competing bid.
- Jefferson Solar sued, alleging the city violated its charter and Gen. Stat. § 7-163e when granting the option, rendering the option void and the company’s bid certification false; counts sought (1) declaratory relief that the option is unenforceable and (2) CUTPA damages for submitting a false bid certification causing Jefferson to lose revenue.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (standing and ripeness), attaching the bid, option, assignment, PURA notices, and other documents; Jefferson opposed but submitted limited affidavits.
- The trial court dismissed: count one (declaratory relief) as not ripe (PURA had not approved the bid) and count two (CUTPA) for lack of standing because Jefferson’s alleged injury was remote/indirect and speculative—United Illuminating would be the directly injured party. Jefferson appealed as to CUTPA standing only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring CUTPA claim | Jefferson: suffered direct, ascertainable loss (lost revenue) because defendants’ false site-control certification secured the contract over Jefferson. | Defendants: Jefferson’s alleged injury is remote/derivative; the utility (contract counterparty) is the directly injured party and would be the proper claimant; Jefferson’s loss is speculative. | Court: Jefferson lacks standing—injuries are remote/indirect and speculative; utility is the proper directly injured party. |
| Ripeness of declaratory relief (count one) | Jefferson sought declaration that the option is void based on city charter and §7-163e violations. | Defendants: declaratory relief not ripe because PURA had not approved/vested the contract and the administrative process could affect outcome. | Court: Declaratory claim was not ripe; PURA had not approved the company’s bid. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Sails Group, LLC v. Boards & More GMBH, 340 Conn. 266 (discussing jurisdictional inquiry on motions to dismiss and consideration of affidavits)
- Connecticut Podiatric Medical Assn. v. Health Net of Connecticut, Inc., 302 Conn. 464 (three-part policy for barring standing of indirectly injured plaintiffs)
- Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 (standing requires direct injury; derivative harms lack standing)
- Vacco v. Microsoft Corp., 260 Conn. 59 (CUTPA standing governed by traditional remoteness principles)
- Channing Real Estate, LLC v. Gates, 326 Conn. 123 (standing implicates subject-matter jurisdiction; plenary review)
- A. Dubreuil & Sons, Inc. v. Lisbon, 215 Conn. 604 (interpretation of "may" vs "shall" in contract language)