DocketNumber: No. 102544
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8005, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 1006
Judges: TELLER, J.
Filed Date: 9/2/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
SCRRRA has filed a statement of compensation in the Superior Court for this judicial district, thereby instituting condemnation proceedings to acquire easements over UNC's real property. Later, SCRRRA filed a Certificate of Taking of the easements over UNC's property.
SCRRRA argues first that because it has already acquired title to the easements, UNC's request for injunctive relief restraining SCRRRA from taking title is moot. SCRRRA further asserts that UNC has failed to allege facts necessary to support its prayer for injunctive relief for alleged violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery CT Page 8006 Act (RCRA) and failed to allege any of the specific grounds upon which a court may invalidate a taking.
UNC argues, in essence, that its claim is not moot because it is challenging the legality of the taking, and to deny it a meaningful opportunity to do so would in effect insulate the taking from judicial review. UNC also argues that the taking was not in fact for a public purpose and therefore sufficiently states a cause of action.
1. Motion to Dismiss
"A motion to dismiss is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the jurisdiction of the court. Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Windham,
The question of mootness implicates subject matter jurisdiction. Murphy's Appeal From Probate,
UNC cites to Broadriver, Inc. v. City of Stamford,
The denial of the temporary injunction nevertheless left the plaintiff free to obtain a full and final determination of the issues it had raised and, if successful, to obtain the relief sought regardless of what, if any, action the defendants might see fit to take in the interim. Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner,
405 F.2d 1321 ,1323 (D.C. Cir.); Ramsburg v. American Investment Co. of Illinois,231 F.2d 333 ,336 (7th Cir.); Turney v. Shriver,269 Ill. 164 ,172 ,109 N.E. 708 ; 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, 318. At the same time, the defendants would, as the cases cited indicate, act at their peril if they undertook to do any act which the plaintiff sought to enjoin. The court's power to restore the status quo or to grant such other relief as might be proper remained unaffected by the disposition made of the temporary injunction. See Jones v. Securities Exchange Commission,298 U.S. 1 ,17 ,18 ,56 S.Ct. 654 ,80 L.Ed. 1015 ; Texas N.O.R. Co. v. Northside Belt Ry. Co.,276 U.S. 475 ,479 ,48 S.Ct. 361 ,72 L.Ed. 661 ; 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, 16. Consequently, the plaintiff's rights were fully protected, the issuance of a certificate of taking notwithstanding.
Id., 528.
Broadriver makes it clear that a court has the
power to restore the status quo between the parties in a taking by condemnation even after a certificate of taking has been filed. Therefore, a real controversy still exists, the determination of which can result in the granting of actual or practical relief. SCRRRA's claim of mootness is CT Page 8008 unpersuasive and its motion to dismiss is denied.
2. Motion to Strike
SCRRRA bases its motion to strike UNC's complaint, in part, on the ground that UNC has failed to allege the elements necessary for the court to find that the taking of the easements was invalid. SCRRRA cites Gohld Realty Co. v. City of Hartford,
The plaintiff has stated a sufficient cause of action and the motion to strike is also denied.
Teller, J.