Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)

Citation: Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)
Parent Document: Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10758261/gentile-riaz-v-samo-thraki-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,391 chars

of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A motion to
         dismiss properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court,
         essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter
         of law and fact state a cause of action that should be
         heard by the court. . . . A court deciding a motion to
         dismiss must determine not the merits of the claim or
         even its legal sufficiency, but rather, whether the claim
         is one that the court has jurisdiction to hear and decide.
         . . . [B]ecause [a] determination regarding a trial
         court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law,
         our review is plenary.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal
         quotation marks omitted.) Godbout v. Attanasio, 199
         Conn. App. 88, 95, 234 A.3d 1031 (2020). ‘‘In undertaking
         this review, we are mindful of the well established
         notion that, in determining whether a court has subject
         matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring juris-
         diction should be indulged.’’ (Internal quotation marks
         omitted.) Graham v. Friedlander, 334 Conn. 564, 571,
         223 A.3d 796 (2020).
            ‘‘Trial courts addressing motions to dismiss for lack
         of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to [Practice
         Book § 10-30] may encounter different situations,
         depending on the status of the record in the case. . . .
         [If] a trial court decides a jurisdictional question raised
         by a pretrial motion to dismiss on the basis of the
         complaint alone, it must consider the allegations of the
         complaint in their most favorable light. . . . In this
         regard, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in
         the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied
         from the allegations, construing them in a manner most
         favorable to the pleader. . . .
           ‘‘In contrast, if the complaint is supplemented by
         undisputed facts established by affidavits submitted in
         support of the motion to dismiss . . . other types of
         undisputed evidence . . . and/or public records of
         which judicial notice may be taken . . . the trial court,
         in determining the jurisdictional issue, may consider
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text