Manifold v. Ragaglia
Decision Date | 28 February 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 25811.,25811. |
Citation | 94 Conn.App. 103,891 A.2d 106 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Kaylee MANIFOLD et al. v. Kristine D. RAGAGLIA, Commissioner of Children and Families, et al. |
Carolyn A. Signorelli, assistant attorney general, with whom were Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Maite Barainca, assistant attorney general, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
Thomas C. Simones, with whom, on the brief, were Timothy A. Bishop, Stratford, and Stephen Burnham, law student intern, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
LAVERY, C.J., and HARPER and FOTI, Js.*
The defendants, Kristine D. Ragaglia, the commissioner of the department of children and families (commissioner), and Richard Days, Nancy Liebenson-Davis, Antonio Donis and Daphne Knight, all employees of the department of children and families (department), appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for summary judgment.1 The defendants claim that the court improperly denied summary judgment because (1) the court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss, rather than the standard for summary judgment, to the defendants' claim that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and (2) no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants intended to inflict emotional distress or whether their conduct was extreme and outrageous so as to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We agree with the defendants' first claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to treat the defendants' motion as a motion for summary judgment. We decline to address the defendants' second claim because the defendants have failed to provide us with an adequate record.
Our Supreme Court set forth the facts relevant to the disposition of the defendants' appeal in Manifold v. Ragaglia, 272 Conn. 410, 862 A.2d 292 (2004). "On April 21, 2001, an anonymous caller from the office of the plaintiffs'2 pediatrician at the Norwich Pediatric Group contacted the department to report that Kathleen Welch, a speech therapist with the Birth to Three Program, had noticed numerous bruises on both Matthew [Manifold] and Kaylee [Manifold], and a rash on Matthew [Manifold] while she was conducting a home based therapy session. In particular, Welch noticed that both children had bruises in the same location on their foreheads. [The children] were two and three years old, respectively, at this time.
The plaintiffs instituted this action against the defendants in April, 2002. They brought claims alleging both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.3 Although the defendants appear to claim in their brief that the plaintiffs' negligent infliction of emotional distress claim has been eliminated,4 we find no support for their contention in the record. The claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress both remain the basis of the plaintiffs' action.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that they were protected by common-law sovereign immunity for actions in their official capacities and by statutory immunity, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-165, for actions in their individual capacities.5 The court, Martin, J., denied the defendants' motion, concluding that the facts, as alleged in the complaint, could demonstrate that the defendants acted beyond the scope of their authority, which would prevent them from being protected by sovereign immunity in their official capacities. The court also determined that the facts, as alleged in the complaint, could support a finding that the defendants acted "wantonly, recklessly or maliciously," which would expose them to liability in their individual capacities under § 4-165.
The defendants then filed a motion to reconsider the motion to dismiss in light of our Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 828 A.2d 549 (2003), and Prigge v. Ragaglia, 265 Conn. 338, 828 A.2d 542 (2003). Relying on those decisions, the court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims against the defendants in their official capacities that sought monetary damages. The court, however, again denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims, which sought declaratory relief and an injunction against the defendants for actions in their official capacities and monetary relief for actions in their individual capacities.
The defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, with which they submitted affidavits, deposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr.
..., supra, 329 Conn. at 594–95, 188 A.3d 702 (petitioner filed motion for articulation with habeas court); Manifold v. Ragaglia , 94 Conn. App. 103, 124, 891 A.2d 106 (2006) (articulation is proper vehicle to address matter overlooked in decision). In short, the petitioner did nothing to aler......
-
Fennelly v. Norton
...e.g., Golodner v. Women's Center of Southeastern Connecticut, Inc., supra, 281 Conn. at 826, 917 A.2d 959; Manifold v. Ragaglia, 94 Conn. App. 103, 117 n. 7, 891 A.2d 106 (2006); "in the absence of any disputed issues of fact pertaining to jurisdiction," a hearing is unnecessary. Amore v. F......
-
Kaminski v. Milling
... ... claim that sovereign immunity [or statutory immunity] bars ... the action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... Manifold v. Ragaglia , 94 Conn.App. 103, 116, 891 ... A.2d 106 (2006) ... In ... addition, the doctrine of federal qualified ... ...
-
Harnage v. Murphy
... ... time consuming preparation to defend the suit on its ... merits." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... Manifold" v. Ragaglia , 94 Conn.App. 103, 112, 891 ... A.2d 106 (2006). As our Supreme Court has explained, the ... statutory immunity provided by \xC2" ... ...
-
2006 Connecticut Appellate Review
...conducting preargument conferences, along with other referees such as Foti and Berdon. 93. 94 Conn. App. 14, 891 A.2d 41 (2006). 94. 94 Conn. App. 103, 113, 891 A.2d 106 (2006). 95. 93 Conn. App. 309, 889 A.2d 666 (2006). 96. Id. at 311. 97. Id. at 310. 98. 96 Conn. App. 381,386, 900 A.2d 5......
-
Roadmap to Connecticut Procedure
...filing of an appearance; or (2) the first pleading filed in response to the complaint. See Practice Book § 10-32; Manifold v. Ragaglia, 94 Conn. App. 103, 116, 891 A.2d 106 (2006); see also Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London, 282 Conn. 791, 814, 925 A.2d 292, 308 (2007) ("......