Cox Cable Advisory Council v. Dept. of Public Utility Control

259 Conn. 56

788 A.2d 29

COX CABLE ADVISORY COUNCIL v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL ET AL.

(SC 16538)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 13, 2001.

Officially released January 15, 2002.

Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js. Edward G. Pizzella, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant).

Burton B. Cohen, with whom, on the brief, was Sharon L. Codeanne, for the appellee (defendant CoxCom Connecticut, Inc.).

Phyllis J. Trowbridge, with whom, on the brief, were Guy R. Mazza and Melissa Day, for the appellee (defendant office of consumer counsel).

Opinion

KATZ, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, the Cox Cable Advisory Council (advisory council), may appeal from the decision of the defendant franchising authority, the department of public utility control (department), granting to the defendant CoxCom Connecticut, Inc., doing business as Cox Communications Connecticut/Manchester (Cox Cable), a renewal of its franchise. The advisory council appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the department's decision to renew Cox Cable's franchise.¹ We determine that federal law preempts parties other than the cable operator from appealing the renewal of a cable franchise and that, accordingly, the trial court's dismissal of the action, albeit on different grounds, was proper.

The record contains the following undisputed facts relevant to this appeal. On April 7, 1998, Cox Cable filed with the department² an application, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 16-331 and 16-333, and § 16-333-38 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, for renewal of its authorization to construct and operate a community antenna television system, pursuant to a franchise or certificate of public convenience and necessity, for the franchise area consisting of the towns of Glastonbury, Manchester, Newington, Rocky Hill, South Windsor and Wethersfield. In accordance with the detailed procedural road map set forth by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Cable Act); 47 U.S.C. § 521 et seq.; and under Connecticut's implementation of this process; see Regs., Conn. State Agencies §§ 16-333-38 (a), 16-333-40 (b); Cox Cable submitted the requisite information to the department. Thereafter, in accordance with General Statutes § 16-331 (d) (5), and §§ 16-333-38 (b) and 16-333-40 of the regulations, the department held a hearing at which it designated Cox Cable and the office of consumer counsel³ as parties to the proceeding. Additionally, the department designated the advisory council, established pursuant to § 16-333-24 et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies⁴ as the council to provide advice to the subject franchise area serviced by Cox Cable, as an intervenor pursuant to § 16-331 (c) (2). Following his request, the mayor of the town of Wethersfield was also granted intervenor status in the administrative proceedings.

Pursuant to § 16-331 (f), the department ordered a community needs assessment, the results of which were provided to the parties as well as the intervenors. Thereafter, Cox Cable submitted its proposal for renewal, which the department considered at several public hearings at which all the parties and the intervenors were afforded the opportunity to present evidence. A draft decision was issued, and the parties and the intervenors were afforded the opportunity to object. Specifically, the department invited all participants to file written exceptions to the draft decision and to notify the department of their intentions to present oral argument regarding the draft decision at a subsequent public hearing. After written objections were filed and oral arguments were presented, the department, on December 22, 1999, issued its final decision offering to renew Cox Cable's franchise, subject to various terms and conditions. Following Cox Cable's submission of a revised proposal for renewal that conformed with the department's decision, Cox Cable and the department executed a final revised franchise agreement.

The advisory council appealed from the decision to the Superior Court, contending that it was aggrieved by the department's decision renewing Cox Cable's franchise because the decision violated the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA).⁵ Cox Cable moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that, because the question of aggrievement is essentially one of standing and thereby implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the advisory council's failure to allege aggrievement deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Quarry Knoll II Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 256 Conn. 674, 701, 780 A.2d 1 (2001) (noting basic principle of law that plaintiff must have standing for court to have jurisdiction). Cox Cable further claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the advisory council was preempted under federal law from bringing its appeal. Thereafter, the advisory council filed an amended appeal alleging additional facts in order to address the issue of aggrievement. The department then filed its own motion to dismiss based on the advisory council's failure to establish aggrievement, and the court considered both motions together.

In reliance on Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 413, 533 A.2d 879 (1987), affd, 206 Conn. 374, 538 A.2d 202 (1988), the trial court determined that the amended appeal properly could not be considered by the court because the amendment had been filed after expiration of the forty-five day appeal period set forth in General Statutes § 4-183 (c).⁶ The trial court thereafter focused on the original appeal and concluded that the advisory council's failure to allege facts showing aggrievement warranted dismissal of the appeal. Specifically, the court noted that the mere allegation by the advisory council that a section of the UAPA had not been followed was, in and of itself, insufficient to establish aggrievement. The trial court also noted that the reference in the amended appeal to the fact that the advisory council performs "functions customarily delegated to such councils by the statutes and regulations of the state of Connecticut" would not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the advisory council's appeal without addressing Cox Cable's jurisdictional challenge based on federal preemption.⁷ This appeal followed.

The advisory council makes three claims: (1) the present action is not preempted by the Cable Act; (2) the original appeal alleged sufficient facts to establish aggrievement; and (3) the amended appeal cured any deficiencies in the original appeal and should have been considered by the court. Cox Cable both defends the trial court's decision on the issue of aggrievement and offers federal preemption as an alternate ground for affirmance.⁸ We agree with Cox Cable that federal law preempts parties other than the cable operator from appealing the renewal of a cable franchise and that, accordingly, the trial court's dismissal of the action, albeit on different grounds, was proper.

Our resolution of the dispositive issue in this appeal, that is, whether the state trial court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action by the advisory council, a third party to the underlying franchise renewal application, is guided by the doctrine of federal preemption as disclosed by the application of the appropriate canons of statutory construction.

"The question of preemption is one of federal law, arising under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution.... Determining whether Congress has exercised its power to preempt state law is a question of legislative intent.... [A]bsent an explicit statement that Congress intends to preempt state law, courts should infer such intent where Congress has legislated comprehensively to occupy an entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the States to supplement federal law ... or where the state law at issue conflicts with federal law, either because it is impossible to comply with both ... or because the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of congressional objectives .... Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Conn. 781, 791, 712 A.2d 396, cert. denied sub nom. Slotnik v. Considine, 525 U.S. 1017, 119 S. Ct. 542, 142 L. Ed.2d 451 (1998)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barbieri v. United Technologies Corp., 255 Conn. 708, 717, 771 A.2d 915 (2001).

Our resolution of this case is also guided by our statutory construction jurisprudence. "The process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature.... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of this case .... In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.... Luce v. United Technologies Corp., 247 Conn. 126, 133, 717 A.2d 747 (1998). In construing a statute, common sense must be used and courts must assume that a reasonable and rational result was intended. Kron v. Thelen, 178 Conn. 189, 192, 423 A.2d 857 (1979); accord Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp., 245 Conn. 1, 26, 717 A.2d 77 (1998). Finally, because the question presented [in] this appeal involves an issue of statutory construction, our review is plenary. E.g., Coley v. Camden Associates, Inc., 243 Conn. 311, 318, 702 A.2d 1180 (1997)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schreck v. Stamford, 250 Conn. 592, 596-97, 737 A.2d 916 (1999); accord Connelly v. Commissioner of...