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

2,350 chars

order. In other words, all statements were pertinent to
       the subject matter of the grievance or protection order
       proceedings such that they qualify for absolute immu-
       nity under the litigation privilege.
          As previously noted, absolute immunity pursuant to
       the litigation privilege bars not only actions for defama-
       tion but a variety of legal theories or causes of actions
       that similarly may be construed as retaliatory on the
       basis of written and oral statements made during the
       course of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. See
       Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 137–38.
       Thus, absolute immunity bars not only the plaintiffs’
       defamation count but also those counts of the plaintiffs’
       complaint sounding in invasion of privacy by false light
       and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
       distress. See Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582, 612–13,
       271 A.3d 53 (2022) (litigation privilege bars negligent
       infliction of emotional distress claim); Simms v. Sea-
       man, 308 Conn. 523, 569, 69 A.3d 880 (2013) (claim of
       intentional infliction of emotional distress is subject to
       litigation privilege); Tucker v. Bitonti, 34 Conn. Supp.
       643, 647, 382 A.2d 841 (App. Sess. 1977) (absolute immu-
       nity bars claim of invasion of privacy if challenged con-
       duct occurred in course of judicial proceedings).
          We nevertheless agree with the plaintiffs that, in
       accordance with our Supreme Court’s holding in Rioux
       v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338, 927 A.2d 304 (2007), absolute
       immunity cannot be invoked to bar those counts seek-
       ing to recover on theories of statutory and common-
       law vexatious litigation. Id., 343. The court in Rioux
       explained that absolute immunity does not attach to
       statements that provide the grounds for the tort of vexa-
       tious litigation, reasoning as follows: ‘‘[T]he fact that
       the tort of vexatious litigation itself employs a test that
       balances the need to encourage complaints against the
       need to protect the injured party’s interests counsels
       strongly against a categorical or absolute immunity
Page 20                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text