234 Conn.App. 281
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Aguilar sued Janet Eick (conservator/guardian) in 2023 for defamation, fraud, vexatious litigation, and IIED based on Eick’s report to a pediatrician that the plaintiff abused his stepchild (J).
- Eick reported J’s allegations to DCF; DCF issued a substantiation, which an administrative hearing officer later reversed; the administrative hearing did not include Eick or J.
- Eick filed a special motion to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti‑SLAPP statute, § 52‑196a; the motion included her sworn affidavit. Aguilar opposed and relied in part on the administrative decision and submitted affidavits.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing with live testimony (three witnesses), then granted Eick’s special motion to dismiss and expressly relied on testimony from that hearing in its memorandum of decision.
- The Appellate Court (panel) ordered supplemental briefing on whether § 52‑196a permits evidentiary hearings and whether testimony adduced at such hearings may be considered; the court reversed, holding the evidentiary hearing and reliance on testimony were improper, and remanded for consideration of pleadings and affidavits and argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52‑196a authorizes an evidentiary (live‑testimony) hearing on a special motion to dismiss | Aguilar: trial court erred in denying opportunity to litigate facts; hearing was appropriate | Eick: statute contemplates a hearing but not a full evidentiary hearing; court may consider submitted evidence | Held: § 52‑196a does not authorize evidentiary hearings; hearings are limited to pleadings and supporting/opposing affidavits |
| Whether trial court may rely on testimony from such a hearing in ruling on a § 52‑196a motion | Aguilar: testimony properly considered and supports probable‑cause showing | Eick: testimony admissible and persuasive; court acted within discretion | Held: reliance on live testimony was improper; court must decide on documentary record (pleadings/affidavits) without making credibility findings |
| Whether reversal and remand are required where trial court held such a hearing and relied on testimony | Aguilar: any error harmless; judgment should stand | Eick: no prejudice; hearing appropriate | Held: reversible error—remand required to allow parties to file supplemental pleadings/affidavits and to argue under § 52‑196a (e)(2) |
| Whether administrative DCF substantiation (and its reversal) collaterally estop Eick from asserting her report was truthful and in good faith | Aguilar: administrative decision precludes Eick from asserting truth/good faith | Eick: administrative proceeding does not have preclusive effect here | Held: collateral estoppel does not apply—issue of Eick’s truth/good faith was not fully litigated/essentially decided and privity is lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafferty v. Jones, 336 Conn. 332 (Conn. 2020) (characterizing § 52‑196a as a special statutory benefit to dismiss SLAPP suits early)
- Smith v. Supple, 346 Conn. 928 (Conn. 2023) (describing anti‑SLAPP motion as an extraordinary procedural vehicle to avoid burdensome litigation)
- Dur‑A‑Flex, Inc. v. Dy, 349 Conn. 513 (Conn. 2024) (trial court may not resolve credibility disputes when deciding summary‑judgment‑type motions)
- Birch Hill Recovery Ctr., LLC v. High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc., 233 Conn. App. 182 (Conn. App. 2025) (in anti‑SLAPP review, courts take facts from pleadings/affidavits and construe them for plaintiff)
- Talandar v. Manchester‑Murphy, 331 A.3d 1093 (Vt. 2024) (Vermont Supreme Court: anti‑SLAPP statute requires a nonevidentiary hearing; evidentiary hearing not required)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard forbids credibility determinations by judge)
- Morse Bros., Inc. v. Webster, 772 A.2d 842 (Me. 2001) (early Maine anti‑SLAPP jurisprudence illustrating perils of treating anti‑SLAPP hearings as evidentiary)