Issue: STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON A CLAIM OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN CONNECTICUT.
|Area of Law:||Government Claims, Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Sovereign immunity claim; Motion to dismiss|
|Cited Cases:||29 Conn. App. 565; 680 A.2d 1321; 54 Conn. App. 178; 709 A.2d 1089; 616 A.2d 1152|
Because a claim of sovereign immunity implicates the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it may be the basis for a motion to dismiss. FDIC v. Peabody, N.E., Inc., 239 Conn. 93, 99, 680 A.2d 1321, 1324 (1996). However, the law strongly disfavors dismissal. When ruling on whether a complaint will survive such a motion, a court must construe the facts in the complaint, including all facts necessarily implied from the allegations, in the manner most favorable to the party who pled them. Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 308, 709 A.2d 1089, 1097 (1998). It must indulge every presumption in favor of subject matter jurisdiction. Amore v. Frankel, 29 Conn. App. 565, 570, 616 A.2d 1152, 1155 (1992). A court may not touch upon the merits of the action, nor may it inquire whether the complaint states a cause of action. Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 54 Conn. App. 178, 182, 734 A.2d 1031, 1033 (1999). In fact, a court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction "only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Id. at 183, 734 A.2d at 1034 (emphasis added).