Birch Hill Recovery Center, LLC v. High Watch Recovery Center, Inc.

Citations

• 233 Conn. App. 182

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing its action sounding in, inter alia, tortious interference with prospective business rela- tions, following the court's grant of the defendant's special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a). The plaintiff, which was seeking to open a substance abuse treatment facility in Kent, where the defendant operated its own such facility, claimed that the court erroneously dismissed the action because it had established that there was probable cause that it would prevail on its claims against the defendant for the defendant's conduct in opposing the plaintiff's opening of the facility. Held: The trial court did not err in granting the defendant's special motion to dismiss, as the court properly concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish probable cause that it would prevail on its claims in light of the defendant's first amendment defense and, accordingly, the plaintiff's claims were barred by the first amendment to the United States constitution. This court concluded that the plaintiff's claim that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and should have analyzed the issue of whether the defendant's conduct was protected activity under the sham litigation exception, established by California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited (404 U.S. 508), to the doctrine of immunity for petitioning activity pursuant to Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. (365 U.S. 127) and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington (381 U.S. 657), was unavailing, as the record showed that the defendant had an objectively reasonable basis for challenging the plaintiff's application seeking to open a substance abuse treatment facility. Argued March 11—officially released June 10, 2025