Sicignano v. Pearce

Citations

• 228 Conn. App. 664

Syllabus

The plaintiff attorney, who represented a will beneficiary in a probate matter, appealed from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the defendants, a residuary beneficiary of the will, and its chief executive officer, who had sent a private email to other attorneys involved in the litigation that the plaintiff claimed was defamatory. The plaintiff claimed that the court improperly granted the defendants' special motions to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a) after determining that his complaint was based on the defendants' exercise of their constitutional right to petition the government on a matter of public concern. Held: The trial court properly concluded that the email was a protected communi- cation made ''in connection with'' an issue under review by a judicial body pursuant to § 52-196a (a) (3) (A) that related to substantive issues in the litigation and was directed to persons having some interest in that litigation. The trial court correctly determined that § 52-196a (a) (3) (A) did not require that the email occur during an official proceeding to constitute protected communication. The trial court properly concluded that the email's content was a matter of public concern that related to economic or community well-being pursuant to § 52-196a (a) (1) (B). This court declined to review the plaintiff's unpreserved claim that the trial court incorrectly determined that he had failed to demonstrate probable cause to believe he would prevail on the merits of his complaint. The trial court did not violate the separation of powers doctrine or the ex post facto clause of the United States constitution when it considered California law in interpreting and applying § 52-196a. Argued May 20—officially released October 15, 2024