Dery v. Southern Connecticut State Un., No. Cv 98 0415866 S (Oct. 8, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Dery v. Southern Connecticut State Un., No. Cv 98 0415866 S (Oct. 8, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11459

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 8, 1998

DocketNo. CV 98 0415866 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11459 (Dery v. Southern Connecticut State Un., No. Cv 98 0415866 S (Oct. 8, 1998)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dery v. Southern Connecticut State Un., No. Cv 98 0415866 S (Oct. 8, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11459 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CT Page 11460 The defendant Southern Connecticut State University ("SCSU") has moved for dismissal of the claims filed against it by the plaintiff Kelly Dery. SCSU claims that the doctrine of sovereign immunity deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff did not appear to argue the motion, nor did she file any pleading in opposition to the motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted.

It is well established that the doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and may be a basis for a motion to dismiss. Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358,364 (1994). Also well established is the principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent. Senter v. Board of Trustees,184 Conn. 339, 342 (1982). Such consent may derive from legislation or judicially recognized exceptions to sovereign immunity. Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17, 31-32 (1987).

In this case, the plaintiff seeks money damages against the state. Such an action may only proceed through statutory authorization. Doe v. Heintz supra 31-32. While General Statutes § 4-160 et seq. may provide such authorization through a decision by the Claims Commissioner, the plaintiff has not obtained the Claims Commissioner's permission to sue.¹ Absent such permission, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's claims against SCSU.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint against SCSU only is granted.

So Ordered at New Haven, Connecticut this 7th day of October, 1998.

Devlin, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CT Page 11460 The defendant Southern Connecticut State University ("SCSU") has moved for dismissal of the claims filed against it by the plaintiff Kelly Dery. SCSU claims that the doctrine of sovereign immunity deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff did not appear to argue the motion, nor did she file any pleading in opposition to the motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted.

It is well established that the doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and may be a basis for a motion to dismiss. Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358,364 (1994). Also well established is the principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent. Senter v. Board of Trustees,184 Conn. 339, 342 (1982). Such consent may derive from legislation or judicially recognized exceptions to sovereign immunity. Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17, 31-32 (1987).

In this case, the plaintiff seeks money damages against the state. Such an action may only proceed through statutory authorization. Doe v. Heintz supra 31-32. While General Statutes § 4-160 et seq. may provide such authorization through a decision by the Claims Commissioner, the plaintiff has not obtained the Claims Commissioner's permission to sue.¹ Absent such permission, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's claims against SCSU.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint against SCSU only is granted.

So Ordered at New Haven, Connecticut this 7th day of October, 1998.

Devlin, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dery-v-southern-connecticut-state-un-no-cv-98-0415866-s-oct-8-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack