Kaufman v. Synnott

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dant's special motion to dismiss pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a) and her motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to § 52-196a (f) (1). The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the special motion to dismiss. Held: The trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the defendant's special motion to dismiss, as the plaintiff's argument was prop- erly characterized as a challenge to the manner in which the court exercised its authority to act in regard to the anti-SLAPP proceedings brought by the defendant, rather than its power to hear and determine such matters. This court declined to consider the merits of the plaintiff's assertions regard- ing the constitutionality of the anti-SLAPP statute, as the plaintiff failed to raise such claims in a timely fashion. The trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for attorney's fees and costs and rejected the plaintiff's interpretation of § 52-196a (f) (1), namely, that, because the defendant's insurance company, C Co., assumed the financial responsibility for payment of the defendant's attorney's fees and costs, the defendant did not \incur\ attorney's fees and costs as required by the statute, as this interpretation was not supported by the statute's plain language or its overarching purpose, the defendant having unquestionably incurred costs in the course of responding to and defending against the plaintiff's SLAPP lawsuit, and C Co., which ultimately assumed financial responsibility for payment, would not have had to pay attorney's fees and costs had they not been incurred in the first instance by the defendant, and the goals of protecting defendants from the time and costs associated with the defense from meritless lawsuits were not benefited or advanced by the plaintiff's interpretation of the statute, which would delay resolution and increase th