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

2,373 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 14                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text