DocketNumber: No. 443641
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2939
Judges: BLUE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/22/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff, Robert C. Flanagan ("Flanagan"), is a former Judge of the Superior Court, who, in that capacity, was publicly censured for engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a married court reporter. In re Flanagan,
Flanagan commenced the present case by service of process on October 3, 2000. He is the sole plaintiff. The defendants are the CHRO; the "State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch"; and Ross.
Flanagan's amended complaint consists of two counts. The first count is an administrative appeal of a September 11, 2000 decision of the CHRO denying Flanagan's motion for an expedited declaratory ruling. The second count complains of a decision made by the CHRO on October 10, 2000 CT Page 2940 granting Ross a release of jurisdiction.
On December 11, 2000, Ross (whose name is now Penny Takash) filed an action against Flanagan in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Takash v. Flanagan, No. 300 CV 02357DJS (D.Conn.). That action, which remains pending, asserts the claims that Ross had previously asserted in the CHRO.
The motion to dismiss now before the court was filed on December 15, 2000. It was heard on February 20, 2001.
The defendants contend that the first count of Flanagan's amended complaint is now moot. Our Supreme Court has recently explained that:
A case that is nonjusticiable must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kleinman v. Marshall,
192 Conn. 479 ,484 ,472 A.2d 772 (1984). "Justiciability requires (1) that there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute . . . (2) that the interests of the parties be adverse . . . (3) that the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by judicial power . . . and (4) that the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pamela B. v. Ment,244 Conn. 296 ,311 ,709 A.2d 1089 (1998).
Mayer v. Biafore, Florek O'Neill,
The determination of the controversy set forth in the first count of the amended complaint will result in no practical relief to the complainant. The first count, as mentioned, complains of the CHRO's denial of Flanagan's motion for an expedited declaratory ruling. Nothing that this court now does will affect the expedition (or lack thereof) of the CHRO's proceedings since those proceedings are at an end. The CHRO has issued a release of its jurisdiction. Its proceedings are over. Nothing the court now does can possibly make the CHRO proceed more expeditiously. The first count is moot.
For somewhat different reasons, the court also lacks jurisdiction with respect to the second count of the amended complaint. The second count complains of the release of jurisdiction granted by the CHRO. This action, as mentioned, was commenced by service of process on October 3, 2000. The CHRO issued its release of jurisdiction on October 10, 2000. CT Page 2941
"Appeals to courts from administrative agencies exist only under statutory authority. . . . A statutory right to appeal may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance with the statutory provisions by which it is created." Citizens Against Pollution Northwest, Inc. v.Connecticut Siting Council,
The court expresses no opinion with respect to any defenses Flanagan may wish to pursue in the pending federal action. Any such defense must be pursued in that action.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
Jon C. Blue Judge of the Superior Court