Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)

Citation: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Parent Document: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2022-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10278647/dorfman-v-smith/ ↗

Full Text

2,530 chars

mon-law immunity from this common-law action is war-
          ranted.
             The plaintiff does not address these factors as to
          each count the trial court dismissed but, rather, argues
          generally that counts three, four, and five are not barred
          by absolute immunity because all three counts are
          premised on the defendant’s improper use of the courts,
          all three counts are the functional equivalent of a claim
          for vexatious litigation, to which absolute immunity
          does not apply, and statutes and case law establish a
          public policy against applying the litigation privilege to
          the alleged conduct.
             The applicability of absolute immunity implicates the
          court’s subject matter jurisdiction.5 E.g., Bruno v. Trav-
          elers Cos., 172 Conn. App. 717, 723, 161 A.3d 630 (2017);
          cf. Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 272 Conn.
          776, 787, 865 A.2d 1163 (2005) (like colorable claim of
          sovereign immunity, to protect against threat of lawsuit,
          colorable claim of absolute immunity based on partici-
          pation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings gives
          rise to immediately appealable final judgment). ‘‘When
          a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question raised by
          a pretrial motion to dismiss . . . a court must take the
          facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including
          those facts necessarily implied from the allegations,
          construing them in a manner most favorable to the
          pleader.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) MacDer-
          mid, Inc. v. Leonetti, supra, 310 Conn. 626. Whether
          absolute immunity applies to the causes of action at
          issue is a question of law subject to de novo review.
            5
              The parties do not dispute that the doctrine of absolute immunity impli-
          cates the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff, however,
          argues that, even if absolute immunity applies in the present case, the court
          retained jurisdiction because it had statutory authority pursuant to § 52-99
          and inherent authority to sanction parties for litigation misconduct. See
          Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834, 848, 850 A.2d 133 (2004). We discuss this
          argument in part II C of this opinion.
March 29, 2022           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 59

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text