DocketNumber: No. 102386
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6036
Judges: WALSH, J.
Filed Date: 8/26/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On July 7, 1995, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss both counts of the complaint on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction, to which the plaintiff filed an objection on September 20, 1995. On October 2, 1995, the motion to dismiss CT Page 6037 count one was denied by the court, Hendel, J., and count two was dismissed by agreement of the parties. The defendant filed an answer and special defenses on October 23, 1995, to which the plaintiff replied on October 26, 1995.
On April 1, 1996, the plaintiff requested leave of the court to amend her complaint. The defendant's objection was sustained by the court, Walsh, J., on May 1, 1996, and the parties tried the plaintiff's common law breach of contract claim to the court.
On May 28, 1996, the plaintiff filed a post-trial brief, moving the court to dismiss her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant filed his post-trial brief on June 3, 1996, urging the court to deny the plaintiff's motion and render a decision in the case.
A motion to dismiss attacks the court's jurisdiction to hear the present action: "the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court." Gurliacci v. Mayer,
This court has heard this case to completion. Before making findings of fact and addressing issues of law, this court must first determine if it has jurisdiction.
The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Lewis v. Gaming Policy Board,
The plaintiff, taking her claim to trial, now urges the court to dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a motion she successfully contested just prior to trial. (Plaintiff's Objection (#115) to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss). Meanwhile, the defendant, after urging the court to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter CT Page 6038 jurisdiction just prior to trial, now argues that the court does have jurisdiction over the action, as conferred by the parties' mutual agreement to try the action before this court, and asks the court to render a decision on the merits in his favor. (Defendant's Post-trial Brief (#126), pp. 3).
Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and decide cases of a particular class. Gurliacci v.Mayer, supra,
The doctrine of preemption, on the other hand, is the power of Congress to declare that federal law shall be the exclusive body of law on certain subjects within its constitutional powers. U.S. Const., art.
In the present case, the claim brought to trial by the plaintiff is a common law breach of contract based on the defendant's alleged failure to contribute to a profit sharing plan. The evidence in the record, establishes that the profit sharing plan instituted by the defendant is a "plan, fund or program" within the meaning of ERISA, because a reasonable person could ascertain the intended benefits, class of beneficiaries, source of financing and the procedures for receiving benefits. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, Summary of Profit Sharing Plan). Williams v. Wright,
Based on the foregoing, the cause of action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Walsh, John F., J.