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

2,387 chars

evidentiary support for the allegation that the defendant
knew its statement had no basis in fact, and a ‘‘jurisdic-
tional’’ hearing would have to be held to determine this
preliminary issue, then individuals will be forced to
defend themselves in these hearings against retaliatory
claims. Such a procedure is in direct conflict with the
purpose of the litigation privilege—to ensure ‘‘the proper
and efficient administration of justice’’; Hopkins v.
O’Connor, supra, 282 Conn. 839; and to protect individu-
als from ‘‘incurring the costs and inconvenience associ-
ated with defending a [retaliatory] suit . . . .’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Simms v. Seaman, supra,
308 Conn. 539.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is more
akin to a claim of defamation or fraud.
C
Finally,13 we consider whether safeguards other than
civil liability deter or preclude misconduct or provide
relief from the alleged misconduct. See id., 552. This
factor is answered by the plaintiff’s own arguments,
which highlight other such safeguards. First, § 52-99
allows parties to seek monetary sanctions from the
trial court for allegations and denials within parties’
pleadings made without reasonable cause and found
to be untrue. Second, the trial court has the inherent
authority to sanction parties for litigation misconduct.
See, e.g., Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834, 846–48, 850
A.2d 133 (2004); see also DeLaurentis v. New Haven,
supra, 220 Conn. 264 (‘‘[w]hile no civil remedies can
guard against lies . . . [p]arties or their counsel who
behave outrageously are subject to punishment for con-
tempt of the court’’ (footnote omitted)); Jaconski v.
AMF, Inc., 208 Conn. 230, 233, 543 A.2d 728 (1988) (‘‘[a]
13
The parties have not cited any case law from federal or state courts
concerning the application of the litigation privilege to a similar claim.
Page 76 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text