193 Conn.App. 576
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff Lawrence S. Jezouit alleged state officials recorded his telephone communications (he left voicemail messages in March 2015) without consent or required notice, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d(a).
- He sought damages under § 52-570d(c) and declaratory and injunctive relief barring state officials and employees from unlawfully recording telephonic communications on behalf of the state.
- Defendants (state officials sued in their official capacities) moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds; the trial court dismissed, briefly vacated that dismissal, then reinstated it after reconsideration.
- The trial court held § 52-570d did not waive sovereign immunity by necessary implication and that the complaint failed to plead the ‘‘substantial allegation’’ required to invoke the injunctive/declaratory exception for officials acting in excess of statutory authority to promote an illegal purpose.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52-570d implicitly waives sovereign immunity by necessary implication | § 52-570d(c) authorizes an aggrieved person to bring a civil action in Superior Court (like § 17a-550), so the statute must impliedly waive sovereign immunity | The statute is ambiguous as to waiver; under Envirotest an implied waiver must be the only possible interpretation; § 52-570d is distinguishable from Mahoney/§17a-550 and contains no express waiver | No implied waiver. § 52-570d does not waive sovereign immunity by necessary implication |
| Whether exemption of certain state actors in § 52-570d(b) implies waiver of sovereign immunity as to non-exempt officials | Because (b) exempts specified state actors, the statute necessarily makes other officials subject to suit for unlawful recordings | Exemptions may reflect waiver of liability for some actors but do not compel waiver of suit; immunity from liability ≠ immunity from suit; legislature uses express language when waiving suit | No. Subsection (b) does not compel waiver of sovereign immunity from suit |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded a cognizable claim under the injunctive/declaratory exception (substantial allegation that officers acted in excess of authority to promote illegal purpose) | Recordings of voicemail without required consent/notice satisfy the ‘‘substantial allegation’’ requirement and support injunctive relief | Voicemail/answering systems are benign and plaintiff alleged no facts showing officers acted to promote an illegal purpose or acted beyond statutory authority | No. Complaint lacked substantial factual allegations that defendants acted in excess of authority to promote an illegal purpose; exception not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Envirotest Systems Corp. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 293 Conn. 382 (2009) (an implied waiver of sovereign immunity exists only if it is the only possible interpretation of the statute)
- Mahoney v. Lensink, 213 Conn. 548 (1990) (statutory remedy in the patients’ bill of rights interpreted as implied waiver in that remedial statutory context)
- Rivers v. New Britain, 288 Conn. 1 (2008) (distinguishing sovereign immunity from liability and sovereign immunity from suit)
- Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342 (2009) (describing the narrow exceptions to sovereign immunity)
- Antinerella v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479 (1994) (injunctive/declaratory exception requires substantial allegation of wrongful conduct to promote illegal purpose)
- Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301 (2003) (limits on monetary damages against state officials acting beyond statutory authority)
- Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 263 Conn. 74 (2003) (statutory interpretation of remedies for public employees; later legislative amendment addressed waiver issues)