Caldwell v. Jannat, LLC

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion
motions and petitions for certification is the “officially
released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the
State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Caldwell v. Jannat, LLC

CHARLES A. CALDWELL v. JANNAT, LLC
(AC 48754)
Cradle, C. J., and Alvord and Eveleigh, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his action
that sought, inter alia, an injunction to prevent the defendant from erecting
a gasoline station on its property. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the
court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
his complaint on the ground that he had failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Held:

This court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were unavailing, as they
were without merit.

Argued April 9—officially released May 12, 2026

Procedural History

Action seeking, inter alia, temporary and permanent
injunctions preventing the defendant from construct-
ing a gasoline station on certain real property, and other
relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of New London, where the court, Chadwick, J.,
granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and rendered
judgment thereon; thereafter, the court, Chadwick, J.,
denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and
the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Kyle J. Zrenda, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Linda L. Morkan, with whom were Ryan D. Hoy-
ler and, on the brief, Brian R. Smith, for the appellee
(defendant).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. In this action for injunctive relief to
prevent the construction of a gasoline station, the plain-
tiff, Charles A. Caldwell, appeals from the judgment of
dismissal, and the denial of his motion for reconsidera-
tion, rendered by the trial court in favor of the defen-
dant, Jannat, LLC. The plaintiff claims on appeal that
the court improperly determined that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s complaint on the
Caldwell v. Jannat, LLC

ground that he had failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following procedural history is relevant to our
disposition of this appeal. The plaintiff commenced the
present action in April 2024, seeking injunctive relief
to prevent the construction of a gasoline station on the
defendant’s property located at 54 South Broad Street in
Stonington (defendant’s property). The defendant filed
a motion to dismiss, in which it alleged that the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s
complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies, and a memorandum
of law in support of its motion to dismiss. The defendant
noted that the “plaintiff has not one, but two active
administrative appeals wherein [he] appeals the very
same actions that the plaintiff alleges leave [him] with
no adequate remedy at law in this action.” The plaintiff
filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion
to dismiss, and the defendant filed a reply.
In its March 25, 2025 memorandum of decision dis-
missing the plaintiff’s complaint, the court noted that
the plaintiff owns and resides at a parcel of real property
overlooking the defendant’s property. The defendant,
a developer of gasoline stations and convenience stores,
received a special permit for the development of a gaso-
line station on its property. The plaintiff has filed two
appeals from decisions of the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission of the Town of Stonington with respect to the
defendant’s property, and the appeals remain pending.2
The court in the present case took judicial notice of
the two pending appeals. The court next considered
the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff had not
exhausted his administrative remedies on the basis of
1
The plaintiff also responds to the defendant’s proposed alternative
grounds for affirmance, which we need not reach.
2
See Caldwell v. Planning & Zoning Commission, Superior Court,
judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S; Caldwell
v. Planning & Zoning Commission, Superior Court, judicial district of
New London, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S.
Caldwell v. Jannat, LLC

the pending appeals, and the plaintiff’s response that an
exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies
doctrine applied because his complaint sought equitable
relief. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, not-
ing that the complaint alleged that the construction
of the gasoline station will create conditions amount-
ing to a nuisance and, although it also stated that the
conditions have begun to be created, “the complaint is
silent as to which of these alleged damages, if any, have
already occurred or are ongoing.” The court concluded
that the plaintiff’s claim was not ripe in that he had not
sufficiently pleaded special damages to obtain injunctive
relief and, thus, the exception to the doctrine of exhaus-
tion of administrative remedies had not been satisfied.
Accordingly, the court granted the defendant’s motion
to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsidera-
tion, which was denied. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improp-
erly (1) addressed the sufficiency of the pleadings as a
jurisdictional issue, and (2) determined that the plain-
tiff’s complaint did not satisfy the exception to the
exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. Hav-
ing reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we
conclude that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.