FORT TRUMBULL CONSERVANCY, LLC v. ANTONIO H. ALVES et al.,

 SC 17826

Judicial District of New London

Environment; Whether Plaintiff Established Standing Under General Statutes § 22a-16; Whether Court Ordered Plaintiff to Amend its Complaint so as to Deprive Court of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Whether Doctrine of the Law of the Case Applied.  The plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-16, seeking to enjoin the city of New London and the New London Development Corporation (development corporation), among others, from demolishing several buildings.  Under § 22a-16, all that is required to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction is a colorable claim, by any person or entity against any person or entity, of conduct resulting in harm to one or more of the state's natural resources.  The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of standing, and the trial court granted their motions.  Thereafter, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had standing to bring the action and remanded the case with direction to deny the development corporation's and the city's motions to dismiss.  On remand, the trial court granted the development corporation's motion to have the plaintiff revise its complaint, and the plaintiff filed a notice indicating that it had complied with the request to revise.  The plaintiff then moved to amend its complaint again.  The trial court denied this motion and also found that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the request to revise.  Consequently, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and the development corporation and the city moved to dismiss that complaint on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the action because it was not aggrieved.  The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, noting that the plaintiff's initial complaint, which had been scrutinized by the Supreme Court, had been altered from its original form and that the current and operative complaint was the second amended complaint.  It further determined that the allegations in that complaint were not sufficient to demonstrate aggrievement and provided no basis for the court to infer harm from the defendants' conduct.  In addition, it rejected the plaintiff's argument that the operative complaint was the direct result of the court's ruling granting the defendant's request to revise and its subsequent ruling denying the plaintiff's motion to amend.  It indicated that it had not ordered the plaintiff to alter the material allegations of the complaint to the extent that the plaintiff could not claim unreasonable harm to the state's natural resources.  Moreover, it rejected the plaintiff's argument that under the doctrine of the law of the case it had standing based upon the Supreme Court's previous determination that it had standing under the allegations of the original complaint.  It found that the plaintiff altered the original complaint in a way that changed the factual predicate upon which the Supreme Court rendered its decision.  In this appeal, the Supreme Court will decide whether the trial court's rulings were proper.