Pryor v. Brignole
SC20581, SC20583
Conn.May 9, 2023Background
- Pryor, a former associate at Brignole’s law firm, settled a 2015 employment dispute with a nondisparagement clause; Pryor paid $45,000 and Brignole agreed not to disparage him.
- In 2018 Pryor was arrested on assault and risk-of-injury-to-a-child charges; anonymous letters alleging the incident were sent to news outlets, identifying Pryor and criticizing his fitness to practice law; the letters appeared to come from Pryor’s office.
- Pryor sued Brignole and the firm for breach of the nondisparagement clause and related damages; defendants filed special motions to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti‑SLAPP statute, § 52‑196a.
- The trial court denied the special motions, reasoning Brignole denied authoring the letters and thus defendants failed their initial burden to show the suit targeted protected speech.
- Defendants appealed; the Appellate Court dismissed the appeals for lack of a final judgment. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification and consolidated the appeals.
- The Supreme Court held that a trial court’s denial of a colorable § 52‑196a special motion to dismiss is an appealable final judgment under the Curcio test (as explained in companion case Smith v. Supple), reversed the Appellate Court, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a § 52‑196a special motion is an appealable final judgment | Denial is not final; no statutory interlocutory appeal and Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction | § 52‑196a(d) and Curcio support immediate appeal where anti‑SLAPP protects a substantive right to avoid merits | Denial of a colorable anti‑SLAPP motion is appealable under Curcio; Appellate Court erred in dismissing appeals |
| Whether alleged anonymous letters constitute protected “right of free speech” under § 52‑196a when defendant denies authorship | Because Brignole denied writing letters, there was no protected speech to show defendants were sued for exercising that right | Initial analysis should look to the nature of statements alleged in complaint; denial of authorship does not defeat step one | Defendants made a colorable claim: complaints alleging communications to media about an arrest/prosecution can be communication in a public forum on a matter of public concern; denial of authorship irrelevant to colorability step |
| Standard for obtaining interlocutory review (what is a colorable claim) | Trial court’s preponderance requirement for initial showing defeats protection absent proof | Colorable claim is a lower threshold—superficially well founded—and suffices for interlocutory appealability inquiry | Colorable means superficially well founded; defendants met colorability threshold for appealability (court did not decide merits) |
| Procedural adequacy of appeals (need to amend appeal after trial court articulation) | Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction because firm failed to amend appeal to include subsequent ruling | Articulation merely clarified earlier denial and did not require amended appeal; existing appeals were sufficient | Supreme Court treats articulation as clarification, not a separate substantive ruling requiring an amended appeal; remanded to Appellate Court |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (two‑prong test for appealability of interlocutory orders; second prong supports immediate appeal when a substantive right is at risk)
- Smith v. Supple, 346 Conn. 928 (2023) (companion decision holding anti‑SLAPP affords a substantive right to avoid merits and denial of a colorable special motion may be immediately appealable)
- Spirtos v. Yemenidjian, 499 P.3d 611 (Nev. 2021) (under similarly worded anti‑SLAPP law, denial of authorship is irrelevant to step‑one analysis)
- Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. 2017) (plaintiff’s pleadings control step‑one anti‑SLAPP analysis; defendant’s denial of making statements does not preclude dismissal consideration)
- Gleason v. Smolinski, 319 Conn. 394 (2015) (definition of matters of public concern includes subjects of legitimate news interest)
- In re Santiago G., 325 Conn. 221 (2017) (definition of a colorable claim as superficially well founded)