Reale v. Rhode Island

Syllabus

The plaintiff, a Connecticut resident, brought a spoliation of evidence action against certain Rhode Island state and town defendants in connection with certain neglect petitions commenced against him in Rhode Island. The defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the plaintiff's complaint. The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in determining that the defen- dants did not waive their right to seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction by concurrently moving to strike the plaintiff's complaint as an alternative to dismissal, and that the court improperly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground of a lack of personal jurisdiction. Held: 1. The trial court properly dismissed the claims against the state defendants, as they were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; during the pendency of the appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that states retain their sovereign immunity from private actions brought in the courts of other states, and, thus, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the state defendants were immune from suit brought by the plaintiff in Connecticut. 2. The trial court properly exercised its discretion to allow the town defen- dant to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike simultaneously; this court has determined previously that a trial court has discretion to overlook the simultaneous filing of a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike in order to consider the motion to dismiss, and this court was bound by that opinion, as it is the policy of this court that one panel should not overrule the ruling of a previous panel unless the appeal is heard en banc. 3. The trial court properly granted the town's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the town was not considered a foreign corpora- tion within the meaning of the long-arm statute that sets fo