Khan v. Jewish Women International

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing his action for, inter alia, defamation. While he was a student at Yale University, the plaintiff was accused of rape by J, a fellow student. The plaintiff was charged with, tried, and acquitted of sexual assault in the Superior Court, but, in subsequent disciplinary proceedings at Yale, Yale expelled the plaintiff for violating its sexual misconduct policy. The plaintiff subsequently brought an action in the United States District Court against J for defamation and tortious interference with business relationships. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ultimately certified questions of Connecticut state law concerning absolute immunity to the Connecticut Supreme Court, and the defendants in the present case filed an application with the Supreme Court to appear as amici curiae. In their attached proposed amicus brief, the defendants stated that the plaintiff had raped J and referred to the plaintiff as J's rapist. The plaintiff then instituted the present action, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants' statements constituted defamation. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly addressed the defendants' special motions to dismiss pursuant to the anti- SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a) after concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Held: The trial court properly concluded that the litigation privilege applied to persons seeking to appear as amici curiae, as the privilege protects all par- ticipants in a judicial proceeding and applies to every step of the proceeding until its final disposition, including statements made in pleadings or other documents prepared in connection with the proceeding. The trial court did not err in concluding that the statements in the proposed amicus brief were pertinent to the certified question before the Supreme Court for purposes of the litigation privilege, as J's allegation th