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

2,433 chars

egregious as alleged. Contrary to the plaintiff’s con-
          tention, the dismissal of his grievance proceeding
          against the defendant does not render this remedy inad-
          equate; rather, it throws cold water on his allegations
          and supports our concern that these kinds of claims may
          easily be raised in retaliation by disgruntled litigants.
                                      D
            Not only are there no appellate level cases on whether
          the litigation privilege applies to claims of statutory
          civil theft in Connecticut, but the parties have provided
          minimal case law from other jurisdictions. The plaintiff
          has not presented any precedent—federal or state—on
          this issue. The defendant has cited only a single federal
          case on this issue, Marin v. McClincy, 15 F. Supp. 3d
          602, 615 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (dismissing conversion claim
          based on filing of documents in connection with law-
          suit), and a handful of cases from sister state courts.
          See Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC,
          238 Cal. App. 4th 200, 212–13, 190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2015)
          (upholding dismissal of action against attorneys for con-
          version and receipt of stolen property); Haliburda v.
          Denholtz, Docket No. E030792, 2002 WL 1898171, *2
          (Cal. App. August 19, 2002) (litigation privilege barred
          abuse of process action despite plaintiff’s dishonest
          conduct in levying bank account); Highland Capital
          Management, LP v. Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C.,
          Docket No. 05-15-00055-CV, 2016 WL 164528, *1 (Tex.
          App. January 14, 2016) (affirming order granting sum-
          mary judgment based on absolute immunity in theft
          and conspiracy action against opponent’s law firm),
          review denied, Docket No. 16-0140 (Tex. June 17, 2016).
          In all of these jurisdictions, the elements of statutory
          theft and conversion are the same as in Connecticut.
          See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 496 (a) and (c) (Deering
          Supp. 2021) (permitting civil suits for treble damages
          against ‘‘[a] principal in the actual theft of the prop-
          erty’’); see also McDonald v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
January 25, 2022          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 57

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text