180 Conn. App. 605
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Sempey, an at-will nurse employed by Stamford Hospital from 1990 to 2013, was terminated; she filed an administrative complaint with the CHRO and received a release of jurisdiction on August 25, 2014 that required suit within 90 days.
- Nine days after the release, Sempey filed a timely Superior Court complaint alleging wrongful discharge (public policy), negligent infliction of emotional distress, and CUTPA violations; she did not allege race discrimination in that original complaint.
- The defendant moved to strike the original complaint; the court granted the motion. Sempey filed a substitute complaint and later an amended substitute complaint that added a count alleging race discrimination under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.).
- On September 21, 2015, the defendant filed (1) a motion to strike the amended substitute complaint in its entirety and (2) a separate motion to dismiss only count one (the race discrimination count) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (timeliness under § 46a-101[e]).
- The trial court granted both motions and dismissed the entire case. Sempey appealed, arguing (a) the court improperly considered the motion to dismiss while the motion to strike was pending and before repleading time expired, and (b) the court erred in dismissing counts two and three where the defendant moved to dismiss only count one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could consider the motion to dismiss while a motion to strike (and the repleading period) was pending | Sempey: court should have waited until repleading period expired; dismissal premature | Hospital: jurisdictional defect may be raised at any time; court must act immediately | Court: properly considered motion to dismiss because subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and must be resolved whenever raised |
| Whether the race discrimination claim in the amended substitute complaint related back to the timely original complaint | Sempey: original complaint put defendant on notice such that relation-back makes discrimination claim timely | Hospital: original complaint did not allege discrimination; amended claim is new and untimely | Court: relation-back failed; original pleading did not fairly notify defendant of a discrimination claim—count one is untimely and properly dismissed |
| Whether the trial court could dismiss counts two and three when the defendant moved to dismiss only count one | Sempey: court lacked authority to dismiss counts 2 & 3 without a motion directed at them or opportunity to replead | Hospital: court has broad case-management authority; any error was harmless because counts were legally deficient | Court: trial court erred—there was no motion to dismiss counts 2 & 3; dismissal without notice or opportunity to replead was improper; reversal as to counts 2 & 3 and remand for further proceedings |
| Remedy: what relief is appropriate after erroneous dismissal of counts two and three | Sempey: reinstate those counts and allow repleading/defense | Hospital: dismissal was effectively harmless; no repleading would cure defects | Court: reverse dismissal of counts two and three, restore case to docket, permit plaintiff opportunity to replead or defend those counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Fairfield Merrittview Ltd. Partnership v. Norwalk, 320 Conn. 535 (Conn. 2016) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage)
- Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531 (Conn. 1991) (once jurisdiction is questioned, court must immediately act)
- Briere v. Greater Hartford Orthopedic Group, P.C., 325 Conn. 198 (Conn. 2017) (relation-back doctrine requires original pleading to give fair notice of the claim asserted later)
- Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Champion Steel, LLC, 323 Conn. 254 (Conn. 2016) (motion-to-dismiss review is de novo and presumption in favor of jurisdiction)
- Egri v. Foisie, 83 Conn. App. 243 (Conn. App. 2004) (policy preference for deciding cases on the merits and safeguards when court acts sua sponte)
- Heim v. California Federal Bank, 78 Conn. App. 351 (Conn. App. 2003) (court may not initiate pretrial disposition without following procedural protections and providing notice/opportunity to oppose)