DocketNumber: No. CV 960393612
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9833, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 290
Judges: HODGSON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 11/27/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The plaintiff Wallingford Board of Education claims that it had postponed the expulsion hearing at the request of the student's attorney and that before the hearing was held, the Due Process Unit of the Bureau of Special Education and Pupil Services of the State Department of Education, at the request of the student's parents, issued an order concerning the student's placement. The hearing officer for the State Department of Education, Gail Mangs, denied a motion by Wallingford to dismiss the student's proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the Wallingford board took the position that C.G.S. §
The State Department of Education has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief on the ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an issue that must now be the subject of an administrative appeal from the order of the state hearing officer. The Wallingford board takes the position that it should be permitted to attack the hearing officer's rulings collaterally before this court because the hearing officer was without jurisdiction.
In fact, the Connecticut Supreme Court has hewn to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies even where, as CT Page 9834 here, the basic issue is whether the administrative agency had jurisdiction to act: ["e]xhaustion is required even in cases where the agency's jurisdiction over the proposed activity has been challenged." O G Industries, Inc. v. Planning and ZoningCommission,
In Greater Bridgeport Transit District v. Local Union 1336,
The Supreme Court acknowledged in Cannata v. Department ofEnvironmental Protection,
In Greater Bridgeport Transit,
It is unclear what effect this holding has on the Supreme Court's observation, in a footnote in Cannata, supra, that exhaustion of an administrative appeal is required "[a]bsent a showing of immediate and irreparable harm." Cannata v. Dept. ofEnvironmental Protection,
Based on the precedents cited above, this court finds that it may not adjudicate the issue of the defendant's jurisdiction upon an application for injunctive relief but must await the filing of an administrative appeal. CT Page 9835
The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.
Beverly J. Hodgson Judge of the Superior Court