Cardi Materials Corp. v. Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi Corp.
Decision Date | 24 June 2003 |
Docket Number | (AC 23131). |
Citation | 823 A.2d 1271,77 Conn. App. 578 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | CARDI MATERIALS CORPORATION v. CONNECTICUT LANDSCAPING BRUZZI CORPORATION. |
William C. Franklin, for the appellant (defendant).
Douglas M. Poulin, for the appellee (plaintiff).
The defendant, Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi Corporation, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in a breach of contract action awarding damages to the plaintiff, Cardi Materials Corporation. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction.1 We conclude that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring suit. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to dismiss the action.
The following facts and procedural history are necessary for our resolution of that issue. In a complaint dated July 11, 2000, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for breach of contract. The parties to the underlying contract were the defendant and Cardi Corporation. Both the plaintiff and Cardi Corporation were incorporated and have their principal places of business in Rhode Island. The plaintiff conceded at oral argument that Cardi Materials Corporation and Cardi Corporation were separate and distinct corporate entities. In its answer, the defendant admitted the existence of the contract between itself and Cardi Corporation, but denied that the plaintiff was a party to the contract.
The plaintiff called Sean Corrigan, a project manager with Cardi Corporation, as its first witness, and the defendant objected to his testimony. The defendant informed the court that Cardi Corporation was not named as a plaintiff in the case and that the named plaintiff was not a party to the contract at issue. The court directed the parties to proceed with the evidence and stated that it would entertain any motions to dismiss at an appropriate time. Upon conclusion of the evidence, the defendant made an oral motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. In response, counsel for the plaintiff stated that "I could move to substitute Cardi Corporation now, which I guess I would formally do to make this accurate." The plaintiff, however, did not move to substitute Cardi Corporation as the plaintiff, nor did the court order that Cardi Corporation be substituted for the plaintiff.2 Rather, the court simply denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal followed.
"It is a fundamental rule that a court may raise and review the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc., 260 Conn. 46, 52, 794 A.2d 498 (2002). "[W]henever a court discovers that is has no jurisdiction, it is bound to dismiss the case. . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Millward Brown, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 73 Conn. App. 757, 766, 811 A.2d 717 (2002); see also Practice Book § 10-33. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Hocap Corp., 71 Conn. App. 632, 636-37, 803 A.2d 402 (2002).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dime Savings Bank of Wallingford v. Arpaia, 55 Conn. App. 180, 183, 738 A.2d 715 (1999). (Internal quotation marks omitted.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pekera v. Purpora
...was no legal basis for ruling upon the purported amendment. The present case is similar to Cardi Materials Corp. v. Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi Corp., 77 Conn.App. 578, 823 A.2d 1271 (2003), in which the defendant, Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi Corporation, challenged the standing of th......
-
Cholewa v. Hill
... ... CV156025338 Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New London, New London ... ACMAT Corp. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co. , 88 ... Cardi Materials Corp. v. Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi ... ...
-
Aetna Health, Inc. v. Kirshner, No. CV 04-0835406 (Conn. Super. 10/2/2006)
...is bound to dismiss the case . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cardi Materials Corp. v. Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi Corp., 77 Conn.App. 578, 580, 823 A.2d 1271 (2003). "When a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss,......
-
Marlin Broadcasting v. Law Office of Kent Avery
...find support in the facts that appear in the record." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cardi Materials Corp. v. Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi Corp., 77 Conn.App. 578, 581, 823 A.2d 1271 (2003). The scope of review of a trial court's factual decisions related to the issue of standing on ......