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

2,512 chars

akin to claims of vexatious litigation and abuse of pro-
cess, to which this court has not afforded absolute
immunity, or to claims of fraud and defamation, to
which this court has afforded absolute immunity. We
conclude that all factors—those considered in Simms
and those unique to this case—weigh in favor of apply-
ing the litigation privilege to bar the plaintiff’s claim in
the present case.
A
The plaintiff argues that her claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing alleges
conduct showing that the defendant systemically abused
the judicial process and thereby improperly used the
courts. ‘‘We have . . . recognized a distinction between
attempting to impose liability [on] a participant in a
judicial proceeding for the words used therein and
attempting to impose liability [on] a litigant for his
improper use of the judicial system itself.’’ MacDermid,
Inc. v. Leonetti, supra, 310 Conn. 629. ‘‘[W]e have refused
to apply absolute immunity to causes of action alleging
the improper use of the judicial system’’ but have applied
immunity to claims premised on factual allegations that
challenge the defendant’s conduct in a properly brought
judicial proceeding when the cause of action does not
require the plaintiff to challenge either the purpose of
the underlying litigation or the purpose of a particular
judicial procedure. Id. The former involves the improper
use of the courts ‘‘to accomplish a purpose for which
[they were] not designed’’ and is not protected by the
litigation privilege. (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 546. The latter
does not involve consideration of whether the purpose
underlying the litigation was improper and, thus, is enti-
tled to absolute immunity, even if the plaintiff alleges
that the defendant’s conduct constituted an improper
use of the courts. Id., 546–47. That is to say, it is not
enough for the plaintiff to allege that the misconduct
at issue constituted an improper use of the judicial
March 29, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 61

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text