Columbia Air Services v. Dept. of Transp.
Decision Date | 08 September 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 18142.,18142. |
Citation | 977 A.2d 636,293 Conn. 342 |
Parties | COLUMBIA AIR SERVICES, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION et al. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Ralph J. Monaco, with whom were Patrick J. Day, New London, and Nicholas W. Burlingham, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Paul K. Pernerewski, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
This appeal arises from an action brought by the plaintiff, Columbia Air Services, Inc., against the defendants, the department of transportation (department)1 and its commissioner, Stephen E. Korta II (commissioner), in connection with the proposed development of certain land located at the Groton-New London Airport (airport). The plaintiff appeals2 from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants after the trial court had granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all counts of the plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court improperly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to three of the counts. We conclude that the entire action is barred by sovereign immunity and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The department owns and operates the airport, which functions as a general aviation airport serving air traffic other than large commercial carriers. Aviation services at the airport, such as fueling and aircraft maintenance, are provided by entities that lease parcels of land from the department.
In 2003, the plaintiff, which was providing certain aviation support services at the airport, requested the opportunity to lease and develop an additional 2.6 acres of land immediately abutting its existing leasehold at the airport (parcel). The commissioner thereafter issued a public invitation for proposals regarding the development and operation of the parcel. The invitation stated that, after reviewing proposals submitted in response to the invitation, the commissioner would approve one proposal and then negotiate with that applicant to reach an agreement.3 The invitation further stated that the commissioner, in his sole discretion, had the right to "cancel all negotiations and terminate the proposal process at any time prior to" the state's execution of a final agreement, and such cancellation would be without recourse by the selected applicant.
After the plaintiff was notified that it was the successful applicant, the department and the plaintiff engaged in negotiations regarding the plaintiff's proposed lease and development of the parcel. Following negotiations that lasted approximately two and one-half years, but did not result in a final agreement, the department notified the plaintiff that it was terminating the proposal process. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought the action underlying this appeal, seeking, inter alia, compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the entire action on the ground that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding, primarily, that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This appeal followed.
As a preliminary matter, we set forth the standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Haight, 279 Conn. 546, 550, 903 A.2d 217 (2006). "[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc., 260 Conn. 46, 51, 794 A.2d 498 (2002); see also Beecher v. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, 282 Conn. 130, 134, 918 A.2d 880 (2007).
As we recently have explained, "[t]rial courts addressing motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ... may encounter different situations, depending on the status of the record in the case.... [L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.... Different rules and procedures will apply, depending on the state of the record at the time the motion is filed.
"Finally, where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650-52, 974 A.2d 669 (2009). In the present case, the jurisdictional issue was decided on the basis of the undisputed facts in the record.
On appeal, the plaintiff makes numerous claims of impropriety regarding the trial court's dismissal of its claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; and (3) deprivation of constitutional rights. In response, the defendants assert that the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss because all of these claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We agree with the defendants that sovereign immunity bars the plaintiff's action. We therefore do not reach the plaintiff's remaining claims on appeal.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Law, 284 Conn. 701, 711, 937 A.2d 675 (2007).
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Law, supra, 284 Conn. at 720-21, 937 A.2d 675. For a claim made pursuant to the first exception, (Internal quotation marks omitted.) C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. Fleming, 284...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chief Info. Officer v. Computers Plus Ctr., Inc.
...narrowly construed under our jurisprudence." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342, 349, 977 A.2d 636 (2009). Finally, we observe that, "[i]n its pristine form the doctrine of sovereign immunity would exempt......
-
Graham v. Friedlander
...a question of law over which we exercise de novo review." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation , 293 Conn. 342, 349, 977 A.2d 636 (2009). "The principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, sovereign immunity, is well estab......
-
Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert
...are few and narrowly construed under our jurisprudence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc . v. Dept. of Transportation , 293 Conn. 342, 349, 977 A.2d 636 (2009).The federal courts have long applied the so-called "no-interest rule," pursuant to which, in the abs......
-
Church v. Missouri
...constitutional rights meaningless." Tucker v. State, 162 Idaho 11, 394 P.3d 54, 61 (2017) (citing Columbia Air Servs., Inc. v. Conn. Dep't of Transp., 293 Conn. 342, 977 A.2d 636, 645 (2009) ; Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 1994) ; Corum v. Univ. of N.C. Through......
-
Connecticut. Practice Text
...of Connecticut); see also Columbia Air Services v. State, Dept. of Transp., 2007 WL 423507 at *12 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007), judgment aff’d, 977 A.2d 636 (Conn. 2009). 180. Id. ; see also CONN. GEN. STAT. § 35-25. 181. Anderson , 1977-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,726, at 72,970-71; see also CONN. ......
-
Roadmap to Connecticut Procedure
...has already indicated the importance of Conboy by quoting it for its clarification of these standards. See Columbia Air Servs. v. DOT, 293 Conn. 342, 347-48, 977 A.2d 636, 641-42 (2009); see also Landelius v. Rinehart, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3153, at *1 (Nov. 23, 2009) (Licari, J.); McGhee......
-
2009 Appellate Review
...41. 293 Conn. 194, 207, 976 A.2d 689 (2009). 42. 294 Conn. 280, 984 A.2d 658 (2009). The authors represented the defendant on appeal. 43. 293 Conn. 342, 977 A.2d 636 (2009). 44. 294 Conn. 418, 984 A.2d 734 (2009). 45. 291 Conn. 433, 970 A.2d 592 (2009). 46. See also Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc......