King. v. Hubbard

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 52-196a), in a civil action in which a party files a complaint against an opposing party that is based on the opposing party's exercise of its right of free speech in connection with a matter of public concern, the opposing party may file a special motion to dismiss the complaint, and, if the trial court grants the motion to dismiss, the oppos- ing party is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The plaintiffs, L and R, sought the issuance of an injunction against the defendant, restraining him from making or publishing any statements about either plaintiff, or about a nonprofit charitable foundation for which L served as a consultant, or about a private club where R worked as an executive chef. The plaintiffs alleged that comments made by the defendant in a post on the private club's Facebook page regarding a fundraising event to be held at the club for the foundation constituted defamation and an invasion of privacy. The defendant was a cofounder of the foundation and a former member of its board of directors. The defendant filed a special motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety pursuant to § 52- 196a, claiming that each count in the complaint was based on his exercise of his right of free speech in connection with a matter of public concern and that he should be awarded costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Prior to the deadline for filing opposition filings, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the action. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to restore the case to the docket, arguing that, pursuant to statute (§ 52-80), the plaintiffs were required to obtain permission of the court to withdraw the action after establishing cause. The plaintiffs objected, asserting, inter alia, that they had a unilateral right to withdraw their action pursu- ant to § 52-80, as a hearing on the merits or a hearing on an issue of fact had not commenced. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to restore, finding that, at the time