320 Conn. 706
Conn.2016Background
- On Oct. 22, 2011, William Clarke, driving a Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (MTGA) limousine, rear-ended Brian and Michelle Lewis on I-95, injuring them.
- Plaintiffs sued Clarke for negligence; they initially named MTGA but later withdrew claims against the tribal entity.
- Clarke moved to dismiss, asserting tribal sovereign immunity because he was acting within the scope of his employment for MTGA (an arm of the Mohegan Tribe). He supported the motion with an affidavit establishing employment and vehicle ownership; plaintiffs offered no contrary evidence.
- The trial court denied the motion, reasoning plaintiffs sought money damages from Clarke personally and not from the tribe, and that naming an individual avoids tribal immunity.
- Clarke appealed; the Connecticut Supreme Court treated the denial as immediately appealable because it raised a colorable sovereign-immunity claim and reviewed the jurisdictional question de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars suit against a tribal employee sued in his individual capacity for torts committed while performing employment duties | Lewis: Suit seeks money from Clarke personally, not the tribe, so tribal immunity doesn't bar the action (rely on remedy-will-run-against-individual approach) | Clarke: He was acting within scope of employment for MTGA (an arm of the tribe); tribal sovereign immunity extends to tribal officials acting in representative capacity, barring suit | Held: Tribal sovereign immunity applies; because undisputed evidence showed Clarke was acting within scope of employment, the claims are barred and dismissal is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (U.S. Supreme Court reaffirming baseline rule that tribal immunity exists unless Congress unequivocally abrogates it)
- Chayoon v. Chao, 355 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.) (tribal officers acting within official capacity cannot be sued individually to circumvent tribal immunity)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (Conn.) (standards for resolving motions to dismiss challenging subject-matter jurisdiction; when court may consider affidavits and undisputed facts)
- Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc., 260 Conn. 46 (Conn.) (connecticut precedent recognizing tribal immunity extends to tribal employees acting within scope of authority)
- Sullins v. Rodriguez, 281 Conn. 128 (Conn.) (denial of a motion to dismiss based on a colorable sovereign-immunity claim is immediately appealable)