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

2,374 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 12                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text