Aguilar v. Eick
Citations
- 234 Conn. App. 281
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dant's special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a). The plaintiff had sought to recover damages for, inter alia, defamation by the defendant in connection with a report the defendant made to the pediatrician of the plaintiff's stepchild, J, regarding the plaintiff's alleged abuse of J. The defendant's report led to an investigation by the Department of Children and Families, which issued a finding substantiating the abuse. Following a hearing, an administrative hearing officer reversed the department's finding. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the special motion to dismiss, at which three witnesses testified. Held: This court concluded, in light of the plain mandate of § 52-196a, which is intended to quickly dispose of meritless litigation at minimal cost through consideration of the pleadings and supporting affidavits of the parties, that the evidentiary hearing and the trial court's reliance on testimony adduced at that hearing in its ruling were improper, as § 52-196a cannot reasonably be read to authorize a court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a special motion to dismiss. The trial court's decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's special motion to dismiss and to predicate its ruling on testimony from that hearing constituted reversible error, as this court concluded, on the basis of the plain language of § 52-196a, its legislative history, the policy it was designed to implement, and persuasive authority from other states, that the legislature did not intend to permit a trial court to conduct such evidentiary hearings and, thus, this court remanded the case to permit the parties an opportunity to file any supplemental pleadings or affidavits and to permit argument thereon. The plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the defendant, in further proceedings, from c
Judges: Elgo; Clark; Bishop
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.