DocketNumber: No. 555599
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5741-bw
Judges: HURLEY, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 4/27/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The defendants argue that the rebuttal brief does not raise any issues not previously addressed by the court, and that the court should simply amend the previous memorandum of decision to indicate that the rebuttal brief was filed. The plaintiff, on the other hand, urges the court to conduct a broad reconsideration of the motions to dismiss. The court will address the arguments raised in the plaintiff's rebuttal brief to the extent that they were not explicitly addressed in the court's previous memorandum of decision.
In its previous memorandum of law in opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiff argued that it has representational standing because it is an organization whose members are statutorily aggrieved under General Statutes §
The plaintiff argues that it has standing by virtue of the fact that its members are homeowners injured by the defendants' conduct. "[T]he CT Page 5741-by federal test for representational standing . . . was articulated in Huntv. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission,
"To establish standing to raise an issue for adjudication, a complainant must make a colorable claim of direct injury. . . . Standing is . . . a practical concept designed to ensure that courts and parties are not vexed by suits brought to vindicate nonjusticiable interests and that judicial decisions which may affect the rights of others are forged in hot controversy, with each view fairly and vigorously represented. . . . These two objectives are ordinarily held to have been met when a complainant makes a colorable claim of direct injury [that the complainant] has suffered or is likely to suffer, in an individual or representative capacity. Such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy . . . provides the requisite assurance of concrete adverseness and diligent advocacy." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Associated Builders Contractors v.Hartford, supra,
In the present case, the complaint contains no allegations of injury whatsoever. The plaintiff argues that standing is established by the plaintiff's allegation that it "is comprised of present and potential members that are residents, homeowners and/or taxpayers who reside in the City of New London, County of New London, State of Connecticut within, adjacent to and/or affected by the MDP. . . ." This allegation does not satisfy the standing requirement. The plaintiff has not alleged an injury to any particular member. In fact, the complaint contains no allegations whatsoever regarding how any particular person has been affected by the defendants' actions. Furthermore, in order to show standing, a plaintiff must allege an injury, not merely that it has been affected by the defendant's actions. CT Page 5741-bz
The plaintiff further argues in its rebuttal brief that it has standing because it has "alleged that due process violations and damages occurred when the defendants threatened to take properties by eminent domain owned by present and potential members of the Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC." While the complaint does contain allegations of due process violations, there is nothing in the complaint linking those alleged violations to an injury to any member of the plaintiff LLC. The plaintiff's argument is without merit.
Finally, the court feels compelled to emphasize again that the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that it has standing to prosecute this action. The plaintiff's rebuttal brief states that "the defendants failed to produce any evidence of the present membership of the LLC to support their inaccurate interpretations of plaintiff's complaint." Our Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction, whenever and however raised." Fink v.Golenbock,
For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the court's January 29, 2001 memorandum of decision, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the motions to dismiss must be granted.
D. Michael Hurley, Judge Trial Referee