Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)

Citation: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Parent Document: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244827/scholz-v-epstein/ ↗

Full Text

2,445 chars

foreclosure proceeding, the litigation privilege shielded
          him from the plaintiff’s statutory theft claim. The plain-
          tiff opposed the defendant’s motion, arguing that his
          claim of statutory theft fell outside the scope of the
          litigation privilege. The trial court granted the defen-
          dant’s motion to dismiss.
             The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which
          affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that
          (1) the balancing of policy considerations, as required
          under Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523, 543–44, 69
          A.3d 880 (2013), weighed in favor of applying absolute
          immunity to the plaintiff’s claim of statutory theft, and
          (2) all the alleged conduct occurred within the underly-
          ing foreclosure proceeding. Scholz v. Epstein, 198 Conn.
          App. 197, 231–33, 232 A.3d 1155 (2020). The plaintiff
          then petitioned this court for certification to appeal,
          which we granted, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Under
          the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court
          correctly conclude that the defendant attorney enjoyed
          absolute immunity from the plaintiff’s claim of statutory
          theft, arising from the defendant’s conduct during prior
          judicial proceedings?’’ Scholz v. Epstein, 335 Conn. 943,
          237 A.3d 2 (2020).
            ‘‘When a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question
          raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss . . . a court must
          take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint,
          including those facts necessarily implied from the alle-
          gations, construing them in a manner most favorable
          to the pleader.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
          MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616, 626, 79 A.3d
          60 (2013). We review de novo a trial court’s decision
          on a motion to dismiss under Practice Book § 10-30 (a)
          (1). See, e.g., id. The parties do not dispute that absolute
          immunity implicates the trial court’s subject matter juris-
          diction.See, e.g., Tyler v. Tatoian, 164 Conn. App. 82,
          87, 137 A.3d 801, cert. denied, 321 Conn. 908, 135 A.3d
          710 (2016); see also Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford
January 25, 2022         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 39

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text