Section 52-196a

Citation: Section 52-196a
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

2,457 chars

right to jury trial and requiring parties to claim right to
          jury within specified time period); Associated Invest-
          ment Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Williams Associates IV,
          230 Conn. 148, 155, 645 A.2d 505 (1994) (excluding
          actions under CUTPA from right to jury trial).
              Section 52-196a does not offend the right to a trial
          by jury because it does not require trial courts to resolve
          disputed issues of fact or to dismiss claims that other-
          wise would survive summary judgment or a motion for
          directed verdict. The plaintiff has not directed us to
          any particular language in the anti-SLAPP statute that
          requires a court to resolve disputed issues of fact.
          Rather, the court is tasked first with considering, on
          the basis of the facts as alleged in the complaint,
          whether the defendant can show by a preponderance
          of the evidence that the opposing party’s action is based
          on the defendant’s exercise of a protected right. Only
          if the defendant meets this burden, does the burden
          then shift to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate only
          that probable cause exists that the plaintiff will prevail
          on the merits of the cause of action asserted. Probable
          cause does not require fact-finding by the court. Rather,
          ‘‘[t]he legal idea of probable cause is a bona fide belief
          in the existence of the facts essential under the law for
          the action and such as would warrant a man of ordinary
          caution, prudence and judgment, under the circum-
          stances, in entertaining it.’’ (Internal quotation marks
          omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn.
          132, 137, 943 A.2d 406 (2008).
             Thus, as explained by the Superior Court, a court
          considering a special motion to dismiss ‘‘does not need
          to make factual findings, but merely needs to determine,
          given all of the evidence provided by the parties, if there
          is any likelihood a reasonable juror could find in favor
          of the plaintiff. . . . If the answer is no, the court must
          dismiss the case and would, thus, only be dismissing a
          case that would be subject to dismissal on a motion
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 31

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text