Robinson v. V. D. (2024)

Citation: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Parent Document: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10282961/robinson-v-v-d/ ↗

Full Text

2,386 chars

We begin by setting forth the appropriate legal stan-
          dard and relevant principles of law. ‘‘When a . . . court
          decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial
          motion to dismiss, it . . . [ordinarily] 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
            8
               ‘‘A special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to § 52-196a . . . is not a
          traditional motion to dismiss based on a jurisdictional ground. It is, instead,
          a truncated evidentiary procedure enacted by our legislature in order to
          achieve a legitimate policy objective, namely, to provide for a prompt rem-
          edy. . . . It is, in this respect, similar to a motion for summary judgment.’’
          (Citation omitted.) Elder v. Kauffman, 204 Conn. App. 818, 824, 254 A.3d
          1001 (2021). In other words, a special motion to dismiss pursuant to § 52-
          196a does not itself implicate a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
             9
               Courts have deemed that certain claims of immunity, such as sovereign
          immunity, implicate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction and, thus, properly
          are raised by way of a motion to dismiss. See Carrubba v. Moskowitz, 81
          Conn. App. 382, 398, 840 A.2d 557 (2004), aff’d, 274 Conn. 533, 877 A.2d 773
          (2005). Other immunities and privileges, however, such as qualified quasi-
          judicial immunity and governmental immunity, have been held not to impli-
          cate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction and, thus, more appropriately are
          raised as a special defense and subsequently tested via a motion to strike
          or a motion for summary judgment. Id., 398–99. Our Supreme Court has
          stated that absolute immunity serves a similar purpose as ‘‘the sovereign
          immunity enjoyed by the state.’’ Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital,
          272 Conn. 776, 787, 865 A.2d 1163 (2005). Accordingly, absolute immunity
          under the litigation privilege, like sovereign immunity, implicates subject
          matter jurisdiction.
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 11

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text