Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's denial of a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the state and its Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to pay approved reimbursement claims under the underground storage tank petroleum cleanup program. The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to payment, as available funds were statutorily allocated among different applicant categories and other pending claims vastly exceeded the remaining balance. Additionally, the court declined to impose a burden-shifting requirement on the defendants, finding that doing so would improperly expand the scope of the writ of mandamus beyond established limits.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court exceeded the scope of the prior appellate remand by requiring the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to mandamus on the merits.
- Whether the plaintiff established a clear legal right to payment of its approved claims sufficient to warrant a writ of mandamus.
- Whether the court should impose a burden-shifting requirement requiring the defendants to prove the existence of other pending claims after the plaintiff made an initial showing of overall funds in the program.
Holdings
- The Superior Court did not exceed the scope of the prior remand by considering the merits of the mandamus claim and requiring the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to the writ.
- The plaintiff was not entitled to mandamus because it failed to establish a clear legal right to immediate payment of its approved claims.
- The court declined to graft a burden-shifting requirement onto the statutory scheme and held that unresolved applications in various stages remained pending even when they had not been actively pursued for years.
Key quotations
“Even though this court concluded in Aldin I that the defendants have a mandatory duty to pay the plaintiff’s claims under the statute as long as ‘‘certain conditions are met’’ and if ‘‘there are funds available for purposes of paying the plaintiff’’; id., 771–72; on remand the plaintiff still had to demonstrate its entitlement to the remedy of a writ of mandamus directing the defendants to pay its claims.” (230 Conn. App. at 239)
“Mandamus neither gives nor defines rights which one does not already have. It enforces, it commands, performance of a duty. It acts at the instance of one having a complete and immediate legal right; it cannot and it does not act upon a doubtful or a contested right” (230 Conn. App. at 245)
“For this court to adopt the plaintiff’s position, we would have to read provisions into the statute that do not exist, as there is no language in the relevant statutes that provides a means by which claims can be deemed abandoned” (230 Conn. App. at 258)
Factual background
Aldin Associates operates gasoline stations containing underground petroleum storage tanks and submitted numerous reimbursement applications under Connecticut's underground storage tank petroleum cleanup program. The Commissioner approved claims totaling $2,253,323.96, but those claims remained unpaid. Although approximately $2.75 million remained in the program, the funds were divided among statutory applicant categories, more than 1,500 claims exceeding $65 million remained pending or unpaid, and another mid-size applicant had payment priority over Aldin under the statutory reverse-auction system.
Procedural history
The plaintiff initially sought mandamus, monetary damages, and constitutional relief in the Superior Court. The trial court dismissed the claims on sovereign-immunity grounds; in the prior appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed in part and remanded the mandamus count for further proceedings. After remand, the plaintiff withdrew its request to compel adjudication of pending claims and pursued only payment of approved claims. Following a trial, the Superior Court denied mandamus, and the Appellate Court affirmed.