Festa v. Watertown Police Dept.

── Festa v. Watertown Police Dept. ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: June 09, 2026 Author: Alvord Category: General ************************************************ 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. ************************************************  Festa v. Watertown Police Dept. MICHAEL FESTA v. WATERTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT ET AL. (AC 48572) Alvord, Suarez and Seeley, Js. Syllabus The plaintiffs appealed from the trial court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging negligence by the defendant town and its chief of police. They claimed that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as neither doctrine implicates the court’s subject matter jurisdiction and, thus, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was not the proper procedural vehicle to adjudicate the applicability of those doctrines. Argued February 18—officially released June 9, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover damages for negligence, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, where MyHoopty.com, LLC, was cited in as a party plaintiff; thereafter, the plaintiffs withdrew their claims against the named defendant; subsequently, the court, Shaban, J., granted the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant town of Watertown et al. and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Reversed; further pro- ceedings. Matthew C. Eagan, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Alan R. Dembiczak, for the appellees (defendant town of Watertown et al.). Opinion SUAREZ, J. The plaintiffs, MyHoopty.com, LLC (MyHoopty), and Michael Festa,1 appeal from the judg- ment of the trial court dismissing, on the grounds of res 1 This action originally was commenced by Festa only. On August 3, 2023, Festa filed a motion to cite in an additional party, MyHoopty.com, LLC, as a party plaintiff. The court granted the motion on August 7,  Festa v. Watertown Police Dept. judicata and collateral estoppel, their action alleging negligence by the defendant town of Watertown (town) and the defendant Joshua Bernegger, the chief of police for the Watertown Police Department.2 On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the court improperly dismissed the action because res judicata and collateral estoppel are not prop- erly raised in a motion to dismiss and do not implicate a court’s subject