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

2,447 chars

because it included numerous allegations unrelated to
         communications made in judicial proceedings; id., 510;
         which, alone, would suffice to support the plaintiff’s claims,
         even if the litigation-related allegations were stricken
         from the complaint. The court stated: ‘‘Although the
         [plaintiff’s] complaint does include allegations of extra-
         judicial conduct, [it] is permeated with allegations per-
         taining to the defendants’ communications and
         participation in prior judicial proceedings, which are
         both central to the plaintiff’s claims and inextricably
         intertwined with the allegations of extrajudicial con-
         duct. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the
         plaintiff’s claims are barred by the litigation privilege.
         To hold otherwise would permit parties to proceed
         with claims that otherwise are barred by the litigation
         privilege simply by adding allegations concerning con-
         duct that is outside the privilege. Such a result would
         significantly undermine the objective the privilege was
         designed to promote.’’ Id.
            On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the
         Appellate Court incorrectly determined that its claims
         are barred by the litigation privilege. The plaintiff argues
         that the Appellate Court’s ‘‘sweeping, unexplained’’
         statement that the allegations concerning the defen-
         dants’ extrajudicial misconduct are ‘‘ ‘inextricably inter-
         twined’ ’’ with the allegations concerning the defendants’
         litigation tactics is legally and factually unsupportable.
         The plaintiff contends that most of the allegations con-
         cerning prior judicial proceedings are unrelated to the
         plaintiff’s claims and are included solely to provide
         ‘‘background’’ as to the parties’ litigation history. Specif-
         ically, the plaintiff argues that, ‘‘[a]s a chronological
         matter, the . . . allegations of litigation-related con-
         duct occurring before [Confirmit’s] June, 2019 [valua-
         tion]—such as those describing the [defendants’] efforts
         between March, 2017, and May, 2019, to tie Confirmit
         up in the Norwegian courts—did not contribute to the
Page 16                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                 May 28, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text