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

2,290 chars

‘‘restraints built into [them] by virtue of [their] stringent
requirements.’’ Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338, 347–48,
927 A.2d 304 (2007); see also Scholz v. Epstein, supra,
341 Conn. 21 (‘‘[t]he plaintiff’s statutory theft claim . . .
is distinguishable from a vexatious litigation claim
because the elements of the claim do not provide any
safeguards to prevent inappropriate retaliatory liti-
gation’’).
In Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 523, we identi-
fied the following factors that courts should consider
when determining whether a claim is barred by the
litigation privilege: ‘‘(1) whether the alleged conduct
subverts the underlying purpose of a judicial proceed-
ing, in a similar way to how conduct constituting abuse
of process and vexatious litigation does; (2) whether
the alleged conduct is similar in essential respects to
defamatory statements, inasmuch as a defamation
action is barred by the privilege; and (3) whether the
alleged conduct may be adequately addressed by other
available remedies.’’ Scholz v. Epstein, supra, 341 Conn.
10–11; see Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 545–46.
‘‘Since . . . Simms, this court has clarified that these
factors . . . are simply instructive, with the focus
being on the issues relevant to the competing interests
in each case in light of the particular context of the
case. . . . We are not required to rely exclusively or
entirely on these factors; rather, they are useful when
undertaking a careful balancing of all competing public
policies implicated by the specific claim at issue and
determining whether affording [parties] this common-
law immunity from this common-law action is war-
ranted.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.) Scholz v. Epstein, supra,
11–12.
Mindful of the foregoing principles and construing
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
we conclude that the Appellate Court erred in determin-
Page 20 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text