Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)

Citation: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Parent Document: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131752/dept-of-public-health-v-estrada/ ↗

Full Text

2,320 chars

tion by implicating sovereign immunity.’’ Dept. of Public
       Health v. Estrada, supra, 211 Conn. App. 234. The
       Appellate Court explained that, ‘‘[w]hen a complainant
       elects to pursue one of the avenues provided for in § 4-
       61dd and then subsequently proceeds to pursue the
       second avenue, the issue concerns the complainant’s
       election of remedies, not subject matter jurisdiction.
       Estrada’s complaint to the [O]ffice of [P]ublic [H]ear-
       ings, even if it is pursued after the initial grievance
       process, does not create a lack of subject matter juris-
       diction. Instead, it may result in a want of a cause of
       action . . . which the department may challenge in a
       special defense.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation
       marks omitted.) Id., 238–39.
          ‘‘When reviewing an issue of subject matter jurisdic-
       tion on appeal, [w]e have long held that because [a]
       determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter
       jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary.
       . . . The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may
       not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by
       a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the
       proceedings, including on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation
       marks omitted.) Sousa v. Sousa, 322 Conn. 757, 770,
       143 A.3d 578 (2016).
          ‘‘Subject matter jurisdiction does not rest on the via-
       bility of the claims that a court is asked to adjudicate.’’
       (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fairchild,
       155 Conn. App. 196, 206, 108 A.3d 1162, cert. denied,
       316 Conn. 902, 111 A.3d 470 (2015). ‘‘Subject matter
       jurisdiction involves the authority of a court to adjudi-
       cate the type of controversy presented by the action
       before it. . . . A court does not truly lack subject mat-
       ter jurisdiction if it has competence to entertain the
       action before it. . . . Once it is determined that a
       [court] has authority or competence to decide the class
       of cases to which the action belongs, the issue of subject
       matter jurisdiction is resolved in favor of entertaining
Page 14                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text