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

2,397 chars

‘‘In determining whether . . . a statute abrogates or
         modifies a [common-law] rule the construction must
         be strict, and the operation of a statute in derogation
         of the common law is to be limited to matters clearly
         brought within its scope. . . . Although the legislature
         may eliminate a [common-law] right by statute, the pre-
         sumption that the legislature does not have such a pur-
         pose can be overcome only if the legislative intent is
         clearly and plainly expressed.’’ (Internal quotation
         marks omitted.) Hopkins v. O’Connor, supra, 282 Conn.
         843. Section 52-99 contains no such clear and plain
         expression.
            To the extent the plaintiff is arguing that public policy
         disfavors immunity under these circumstances, we dis-
         agree. If anything, as discussed more in part II C of this
         opinion, § 52-99 demonstrates that other remedies exist
         for addressing and disincentivizing the alleged conduct.
         Additionally, our case law does not support a public
         policy disfavoring immunity for false pleadings but, to
         the contrary, manifests, as discussed, a policy in favor
         of immunizing communications made during and rele-
         vant to litigation, even if they are intentionally false
         and malicious. The cases the plaintiff cites in support
         of her public policy argument either are vexatious litiga-
         tion and abuse of process cases—causes of action that
         were not alleged in the present case—or do not involve
         the litigation privilege.
            Our conclusion does not, as the plaintiff argues, ren-
         der § 52-99 useless because parties may seek sanctions
         for litigation misconduct under this statute. Our holding
         means only that this statute does not support the plain-
         tiff’s bringing of a private right of action premised on
         this conduct. For this reason, there is no merit to the
         plaintiff’s argument that, because § 52-99 and the court’s
         inherent authority authorize the court to sanction par-
         ties for litigation misconduct, the court retains subject
         matter jurisdiction over these claims despite the litiga-
Page 74                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text