224 Conn.App. 379
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Black Rock Gardens, LLC (landlord) brought a summary process (eviction) action against Henry Berry (tenant) for alleged non-payment of rent and for lapse of the lease for an apartment in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
- Berry denied the plaintiff's allegations and raised multiple special defenses, including that the eviction was retaliatory due to his complaints against the landlord and that the premises were unfit for habitation.
- Berry filed multiple motions to dismiss, including a special motion to dismiss under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute (General Statutes § 52-196a), arguing that the suit violated his First Amendment rights as retaliation for his petitioning activities (namely, a CHRO complaint against the landlord).
- The trial court denied Berry’s anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that service was proper and that the eviction was based on nonpayment of rent, not protected speech or association.
- Berry appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss, claiming entitlement to immediate appellate review under the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Black Rock Gardens, LLC moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing no final judgment existed for appellate review because no colorable anti-SLAPP claim was presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss an appealable final judgment? | No final judgment; anti-SLAPP is inapplicable since complaint is not based on protected activity. | Motion is immediately appealable because it implicates constitutional rights and was brought in retaliation for protected conduct. | Not appealable: no colorable anti-SLAPP claim as the eviction rests solely on nonpayment/lapse of lease, not on protected activity. |
| Does the plaintiff's summary process action implicate defendant's rights of speech, association, or petition? | No; action is based on tenant’s failure to pay rent and lease lapse, not on speech/association/petition. | Yes; action is retaliatory due to his prior complaint with CHRO (i.e., petitioning government). | No; complaint contains no claims or allegations based on protected rights. Motivation does not convert the basis of the action. |
| Is defendant entitled to anti-SLAPP protection for the alleged retaliatory eviction? | No; complaint is silent on protected activity and focuses on landlord/tenant contractual issues. | Yes; filing with CHRO constituted petitioning—eviction thus targets protected activity. | No; statute examines the complaint's basis, not the plaintiff’s motive. Retaliatory purpose is a separate affirmative defense under housing law, not anti-SLAPP. |
| Should the appeal be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? | Yes; no colorable anti-SLAPP claim, so no jurisdiction. | No; alleges serious constitutional deprivation deserving interlocutory review. | Yes; appeal dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Supple, 346 Conn. 928 (Conn. 2023) (court extensively construed anti-SLAPP statute and when denials are immediately appealable)
- Pryor v. Brignole, 346 Conn. 534 (Conn. 2023) (interpretation of colorable claims under anti-SLAPP statute)
- Robinson v. V.D., 346 Conn. 1002 (Conn. 2023) (application of anti-SLAPP to protected speech and right to petition)