Robinson v. V. D. (2024)

Citation: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Parent Document: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10282961/robinson-v-v-d/ ↗

Full Text

2,693 chars

privilege applies, every presumption in favor of the
court’s jurisdiction should be indulged.’’ (Citations
omitted; footnote added; internal quotations marks
omitted.) Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120,
136–37, 314 A.3d 583 (2024).
Courts often have used the terms absolute immunity
and litigation privilege interchangeably. See Tyler v.
Tatoian, 164 Conn. App. 82, 83 n.1, 137 A.3d 801, cert.
denied, 321 Conn. 908, 135 A.3d 710 (2016). ‘‘The litiga-
tion privilege is a long-standing [common-law] rule that
communications uttered or published in the course of
judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged so long
as they are in some way pertinent to the subject of the
controversy. . . . The privilege . . . applies to every
step of the proceeding until [its] final disposition . . .
including to statements made in pleadings or other doc-
uments prepared in connection with [the] proceeding.
. . . The privilege originated in response to the need
to bar persons accused of crimes from suing their accus-
ers for defamation. . . . [It] then developed to encom-
pass and bar defamation claims against all participants
in judicial proceedings, including judges, attorneys, par-
ties, and witnesses. . . . Subsequently, the privilege
was expanded to bar a variety of retaliatory civil claims
arising from communications or communicative acts
10
As explained in more detail by our Supreme Court in Conboy v. State,
292 Conn. 642, 650, 974 A.2d 669 (2009), ‘‘[t]rial courts addressing motions to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . may encounter different
situations, depending on the status of the record in the case.’’ The court in
Conboy agreed with analogous federal jurisprudence that ‘‘[l]ack of subject
matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the
complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evi-
denced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed
facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.’’ Id., 651. In the present
case, neither party has asserted that the absolute immunity issue requires
resolution of any disputed jurisdictional facts. Accordingly, we can resolve
the question of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the allegations in
the complaint and those facts that are undisputed as evidenced in the record.
Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text