351 Conn. 120
Conn.2025Background
- Sean Murphy (plaintiff) sued Beth Rosen (defendant) for defamation per se after Rosen called Murphy a "white supremacist" on a town Facebook page during a heated political discussion following the killing of George Floyd.
- The plaintiff claimed the characterization injured his reputation, seeking damages and other relief in state court.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-196a), arguing her statement was protected free speech on a matter of public concern.
- The trial court found the statement was a nonactionable opinion, not provable as a fact, granted the special motion to dismiss, and awarded defendant $38,023.63 in attorney’s fees and costs.
- Murphy appealed both the dismissal and the attorney’s fees award to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendant's "white supremacist" statement meet anti-SLAPP burden under § 52-196a? | Murphy argued the trial court erred in concluding Rosen met her initial burden. | Rosen contended Murphy stipulated to her satisfaction of the initial burden; any claim is waived. | Court held Murphy expressly waived this issue; stipulation bars review. |
| Is calling someone a "white supremacist" actionable defamation per se or nonactionable opinion? | Murphy argued this is a fact that could be proven true/false or implies undisclosed defamatory facts. | Rosen argued it’s inherently subjective, a matter of opinion, and context (heated debate) shows no factual assertion. | Court held it's a nonactionable opinion; term lacks objective/verifiable meaning. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying motion for reconsideration? | Murphy claimed denial was improper due to misapplication of defamation law. | Rosen maintained law was correctly applied and no abuse occurred. | Court found no abuse; law correctly applied. |
| Was awarding attorney’s fees and costs proper? | Murphy said fees award was unwarranted. | Rosen argued award was mandated and justified by anti-SLAPP statute. | Court affirmed fee award; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- NetScout Sys., Inc. v. Gartner, Inc., 334 Conn. 396 (defamation claims require actionable statements of fact, not opinions)
- Gleason v. Smolinski, 319 Conn. 394 (summarizes elements of defamation under Connecticut law)
- Stevens v. Khalily, 220 Conn. App. 634 (distinguishing libel per se from libel per quod)
- State v. Miranda, 327 Conn. 451 (on waiver of known rights in court proceedings)
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (review standard for attorney’s fees awards)