132 Conn. App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Natale Ruisi sued defendant Timothy O'Sullivan, executive director of the New York Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, in Connecticut Superior Court for alleged mishandling of an award related to a former attorney's malfeasance and resulting damages.
- Defendant moved to dismiss asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity and lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service.
- Trial court denied the motions, and later denied a motion to strike; the court did not determine jurisdiction or invite a factual record on jurisdiction.
- Court of Appeals held the trial court improperly declined to address sovereign immunity and did not conduct the requisite jurisdictional inquiry.
- Sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction; a two-part, evidentiary jurisdictional inquiry is required when facts are necessary to resolve jurisdiction.
- The case is remanded for proper jurisdictional analysis and any necessary factual proceedings in light of Gordon and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars the action and divests subject matter jurisdiction. | Ruisi contends sovereign immunity bars the suit. | O'Sullivan contends immunity may apply and limit proceedings. | Jurisdictionary ruling required; improper failure to decide sovereignty immunity. |
| Whether sovereign immunity should be challenged by a motion to dismiss rather than a strike. | Ruisi argues the form of challenge was misapplied. | O'Sullivan maintains immunity is jurisdictional and should be raised on a motion to dismiss. | Court improperly treated immunity as a special defense rather than dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolnack v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 33 Conn.App. 832 (1994) (factors for whether entity is an arm of the state for immunity)
- Gordon v. H.N.S. Management Co., 272 Conn. 81 (2004) (criteria for arm-of-the-state sovereign immunity; factors evaluated cumulatively)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (2009) (jurisdictional questions require evidentiary hearing when necessary to determine jurisdiction)
- D'Eramo v. Smith, 273 Conn. 610 (2005) (jurisdiction must be addressed regardless of pleading form)
- Flanagan v. Blumenthal, 265 Conn. 350 (2003) (immediately appealable final judgment when based on sovereign immunity)
- Carrubba v. Moskowitz, 81 Conn.App. 382 (2004) (sovereign immunity should be raised as a dismissal issue, not only as a special defense)