Nardozzi v. Perez
212 Conn. App. 546
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2022Background:
- Plaintiff James Nardozzi, a former assistant police chief, sued Bridgeport and two former employees alleging a conspiracy to rig the open competitive exam for chief of police and related misconduct using work computers.
- Nardozzi had earlier filed a wrongful-termination action against the city; the parties reached a settlement agreement (the termination action remained pending until January 2021).
- Count 4 of the new complaint alleged the city fraudulently withheld information about the cheating scheme during settlement negotiations in the termination action.
- Count 9 alleged computer crime under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-251, describing how employees used city computers to carry out the cheating scheme (mechanics of the scheme rather than settlement communications).
- The trial court dismissed Count 4 as barred by the litigation privilege but denied dismissal of Count 9, finding no connection between Count 9’s allegations and litigation activity.
- The city appealed the denial as to Count 9; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding the litigation privilege did not shield Count 9.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the litigation privilege bars the fraud claim for nondisclosure during settlement (Count 4) | Nardozzi: privilege should not cover criminally fraudulent behavior and public policy disfavors shielding such misconduct | Bridgeport: statements during settlement are communications in a judicial proceeding and absolutely privileged | Court: Count 4 was barred by the litigation privilege (settlement communications directly related to litigation) |
| Whether the litigation privilege bars the computer-crime claim based on alleged cheating via city computers (Count 9) | Nardozzi: Count 9 alleges independent, non-litigation mechanics of cheating; privilege does not reach this conduct | Bridgeport: Count 9 is derivative of the fraud claim and should be covered by the privilege | Court: Privilege does not apply to Count 9; no nexus to litigation and conduct occurred outside judicial proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (2013) (framework and limits of the litigation privilege; policy factors for absolute immunity)
- Dorfman v. Smith, 343 Conn. 582 (2022) (describing purpose of absolute immunity to encourage candor in judicial proceedings)
- Bruno v. Travelers Cos., 172 Conn. App. 717 (2017) (litigation privilege bars claims grounded in communications made during judicial proceedings)
- Tyler v. Tatoian, 164 Conn. App. 82 (2016) (fraud claims based on deposition or trial testimony are barred by the privilege)
- Fiondella v. Meriden, 186 Conn. App. 552 (2018) (privilege does not shield independent wrongful conduct occurring outside litigation)
- Kenneson v. Eggert, 196 Conn. App. 773 (2020) (communications during settlement or judicial proceedings are protected if pertinent to the controversy)