Background
Michael Festa and his towing company, MyHoopty.com, LLC, filed the present negligence action against the Town of Watertown and its police chief, Joshua Bernegger. The suit alleged that, in retaliation for a prior lawsuit the plaintiffs had brought against the same defendants, police officers repeatedly coerced them into releasing towed vehicles to owners who lacked documentation required under Connecticut General Statutes § 14-145b, causing the plaintiffs economic harm, loss of reputation, and loss of business goodwill.
The plaintiffs had previously litigated a separate action against the same defendants arising from MyHoopty’s removal from the town’s municipal tow list. That prior action, which asserted breach of contract, tortious interference, fraudulent inducement, and various tort claims, ended when the Superior Court granted summary judgment in the defendants’ favor in May 2024.
After summary judgment was entered in the prior action, the defendants in the present case moved to dismiss the operative complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel and that those doctrines therefore deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action, prompting the plaintiffs’ appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the dismissal, holding that neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel implicates a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Because a motion to dismiss under Practice Book § 10-30 is limited to jurisdictional and process-based defenses, it is not the proper procedural vehicle to raise claim preclusion or issue preclusion. Those defenses must instead be specially pleaded as affirmative defenses and, if appropriate, adjudicated on a motion for summary judgment.
The court rejected the defendants’ invitation to treat the procedurally improper motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. It emphasized that the two motions apply different standards and analytical frameworks — a motion to dismiss is decided on the face of the complaint, while summary judgment requires consideration of all pleadings, affidavits, and evidence developed through discovery. The defendants offered no authority to justify departing from those settled principles.
The case was remanded with direction to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) do not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss under Connecticut Practice Book § 10-30.
- Both defenses must be specially pleaded as affirmative defenses; once pleaded, they may properly be resolved on a motion for summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss.
- An appellate court will not convert a procedurally improper motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment simply because the factual record may be undisputed — the two motions operate under distinct legal standards that a trial court must apply correctly.
- Subject matter jurisdiction arguments may be raised for the first time on appeal; where a trial court incorrectly characterizes a defense as jurisdictional, the resulting dismissal is reversible error.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a foundational principle of Connecticut civil procedure that practitioners sometimes overlook under pressure to end litigation early: preclusion doctrines are merits-based defenses, not jurisdictional ones. Defense counsel seeking to terminate a second suit based on a prior judgment must file a proper special defense and pursue summary judgment — skipping that step by clothing the argument in jurisdictional language will not survive appellate scrutiny.
For plaintiffs, the ruling confirms that a prior adverse judgment does not automatically foreclose a new action at the pleading stage. The defendants here may yet prevail on res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds in future proceedings, but the plaintiffs are entitled to litigate those issues under the correct procedural framework, with the full evidentiary record a summary judgment motion requires.