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

2,310 chars

kind of tort against the defendant, who served as oppos-
         ing counsel in the underlying litigation. Scholz v.
         Epstein, supra, 198 Conn. App. 211–12. As a result, we
         must examine our case law, and the policies underpin-
         ning it, to determine whether the plaintiff’s claim is
         more akin to claims of vexatious litigation and abuse
         of process, to which this court has not afforded absolute
         immunity, or to claims of fraud and defamation, to
         which this court has afforded absolute immunity. We
         conclude that all factors—those considered in Simms
         and those unique to this case—weigh in favor of
         applying the litigation privilege to bar the plaintiff’s
         claim in the present case.
                                               A
            The plaintiff argues that his statutory theft claim, like
         a claim of vexatious litigation, alleges conduct
         amounting to an abuse of a judicial proceeding. He
         claims that the defendant subverted the proper purpose
         of the foreclosure proceeding, abusing it and weaponiz-
         ing it as a tool to steal the plaintiff’s property for Bench-
         mark. According to the plaintiff, his claim, unlike claims
         of fraud and defamation, does not involve the allegedly
         improper conduct of an attorney in the role of an advo-
         cate for a client, which is protected by absolute immu-
         nity, because theft is a crime of dishonesty, not a
         legitimate tool of advocacy. Theft, he argues, is the
         ‘‘very antithesis of candor in judicial proceedings,’’ and,
         thus, there is no need to immunize the defendant to
         encourage participation and candor in judicial pro-
         ceedings.
           When determining whether a plaintiff’s claim chal-
         lenges the purpose of the underlying judicial proceed-
         ing, we have distinguished between claims challenging
         CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (February 6, 2018) (65 Conn. L. Rptr. 893, 899–901), and
         Stradinger v. Griffin Hospital, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury,
         Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (December 11, 2015).
Page 44                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL             January 25, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text