The plaintiff bank sought to recover damages for alleged tortious interfer-
ence with business expectancy and violation of the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.), for the defendants’
actions in connection with the plaintiff’s attempt to collect amounts
owed to it by S Co., which the plaintiff alleged was a shell company
controlled by the defendant A. The plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment
it previously obtained against S Co. in a different jurisdiction and alleged
that the defendants deliberately interfered with a court-ordered sale
of certain assets to satisfy that judgment by fabricating a document
purporting to grant the defendant C the right of first refusal to acquire
the asset, shares in a software company. The trial court denied the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, in which they
claimed that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the
plaintiff’s allegations arose out of communications made and actions
taken in past judicial proceedings and were thus barred by the litigation
privilege. On the defendants’ appeal to this court, held:
1. The trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with business expectancy, as
the claim was predicated on communications made during and relevant
to prior judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings: multiple paragraphs of
the plaintiff’s complaint included allegations concerning the defendants’
participation in or commencement of legal actions or appeals, and the
fact that the plaintiff characterized the defendants’ alleged legal actions
as conduct that was meritless, frivolous or an abuse of the legal system
did not bring the conduct within the limited exception to the litigation
privilege, as the cause of action of tortious interference does not chal-
lenge the purpose of the underlying litigation procedure; moreover, the
plaintiff could have pursued other remedies to address the defendants’
claimed abuses, including an abuse of process or vexatious litigation
claim, but chose not to do so.
2. The trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s claim asserting a violation of CUTPA; the plaintiff’s claim,
premised largely on the defendants’ alleged communications and con-
duct in prior judicial proceedings, including the alleged introduction of
false and/or fabricated evidence and the alleged filing of false and/or
frivolous actions and appeals, closely resembled CUTPA claims that
courts in Connecticut consistently have held are barred by the litiga-
tion privilege.
3. Although the plaintiff’s complaint included allegations unrelated to com-
munications in the course of judicial proceedings, the litigation privilege
barred those claims, as the complaint was permeated with allegations
pertaining to the defendants’ communications and participation in prior
judicial proceedings, which were both central to the plaintiff’s claims and
inextricably intertwined with the allegations of extrajudicial conduct.
Argued February 14—officially released August 23, 2022 Procedural History