Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)

Citation: Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)
Parent Document: Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-05-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131755/deutsche-bank-ag-v-vik/ ↗

Full Text

2,449 chars

Applying these principles to the plaintiff’s complaint,
         the trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were
         not barred by the litigation privilege because the
         scheme alleged in the complaint did not involve the
         use of baseless litigation tactics only; it also involved
         extrajudicial misconduct to which the privilege does
         not apply. The court also concluded that the plaintiff’s
         claims relating to prior judicial proceedings ‘‘do not
         concern how [those] cases were litigated, or the words
         used in communications by litigants or advocates . . .
         but, rather, they allege improper use of the judicial
         system for purposes not intended to further the course
         of justice but rather to pervert the course of justice. In
         this sense the claims are akin to claims for vexatious
         litigation, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution,
         and, unlike the . . . claims [to] which [the litigation
         privilege] has been held to apply to protect litigants
         for words used in [legal] communications [in order] to
         encourage robust use of the legal system . . . .’’ The
         court further concluded that ‘‘[t]he conduct alleged [in
         the plaintiff’s complaint], sham transactions and forged
         documents that are falsely presented to judicial authori-
         ties in meritless [actions], goes well beyond alleged
         misconduct in advocacy of the sort that [has] been
         immunized to protect litigants from any chilling effect
         from the prospect of retaliatory litigation . . . .’’
            The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal from
         the trial court’s ruling with the Appellate Court, claim-
         ing that the trial court incorrectly determined that the
         litigation privilege did not bar the plaintiff’s claims. See
         Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 214 Conn. App. 495.
         The defendants argued, inter alia, that the trial court
         not only misapplied the law governing the privilege,
         but it also erroneously determined that the plaintiff’s
         allegations fell within the abuse of process exception
         to the privilege, despite the plaintiff’s not having
         pleaded an abuse of process claim. Id. The Appellate
Page 14                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                 May 28, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text