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

2,545 chars

ted that it did not single the plaintiff out for special
           treatment when it provided the false responses. See
           part IV of the majority opinion. I would have preferred
           that the majority explain that these factual assertions
           fail adequately to allege that the purported misconduct
           occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general
           business practice, and stop there. Instead, the majority
           chooses to ‘‘assume’’ that a general business practice
           is alleged, and then explains why the act of filing false
           discovery responses is within the scope of the litigation
           privilege in a CUIPA/CUTPA case. See id.
              I am aware of no good reason to assume that a legally
           insufficient pleading is legally sufficient under these
           circumstances, and I consider it unwise to do so. The
           discussion of the litigation privilege in the majority opin-
           ion is unnecessary because the critical allegation required
           to state a CUIPA claim—that filing false discovery
           responses is part of the defendant’s ‘‘general business
           practice’’—is deficient as a matter of law. As the major-
           ity points out, the sole, relevant allegation consists of
           the plaintiff’s assertion that ‘‘the defendant ‘did not
           single [her] out . . . for special or unique treatment
           when it responded falsely to [her] discovery requests.’ ’’
           Id. Even if this allegation is construed liberally, as it
           must be, the complaint fails to allege that the conduct at
           issue was committed ‘‘with such frequency as to indi-
           cate a general business practice,’’ as CUIPA requires.
           General Statutes § 38a-816 (6). The allegation that the
           plaintiff was not singled out for special or unique treat-
           ment does not state, or even imply, that the defendant
           files false discovery answers frequently, as part of a
           general business practice, plan or strategy. It means
           only that the discovery misconduct of which the plain-
           tiff complains was not undertaken against her with any
           personal animus or particularized intent. The plaintiff
           is ‘‘the master of her complaint,’’ as the majority points
           out; footnote 6 of the majority opinion; and was permit-
March 29, 2022           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 111

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text