Villages, LLC v. Longhi
142 A.3d 1162
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Villages, LLC applied (2009) for a special use permit and open-space subdivision in Enfield; the Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission denied the applications after public hearings.
- In administrative/zoning appeals, the trial court found commissioner Lori Longhi biased, had engaged in ex parte communications (with a Hazardville Water Authority representative), dominated deliberations, and that the commission’s denial was not honest, legal, and fair; the appeals were sustained and remanded.
- Villages then sued Longhi (October 2012) individually for intentional fraudulent misrepresentation and intentional tortious interference with business expectancy based on her alleged bias and ex parte communications.
- Longhi moved to dismiss asserting absolute immunity (litigation privilege) as a member of a quasi-judicial body; she also pleaded governmental/qualified-immunity defenses referencing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(c).
- Trial court (Wiese, J.) dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding the litigation privilege (a form of absolute immunity) protected Longhi; the plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the litigation privilege/absolute immunity bars Villages’ claims | Claims rest on Longhi’s bias and ex parte evidence-gathering, not merely on statements at the hearing; absolute immunity inapplicable | As a member of a quasi-judicial commission, Longhi’s actions/statements are absolutely privileged | Litigation privilege (absolute immunity) does not apply to the alleged ex parte bias/evidence-gathering at issue |
| Whether § 52-557n(c) displaces absolute immunity and governs immunity here | § 52-557n(c) applies and provides only qualified immunity; it permits suit for reckless, wilful, wanton, bad-faith or ethics-violating conduct | Longhi emphasized common-law absolute immunity for quasi-judicial proceedings | § 52-557n(c) provides qualified (not absolute) immunity and is the proper framework for municipal volunteer decisionmakers |
| Whether alleged ex parte communications and internal bias fall outside immunity protections | Ex parte communications and bias deprived Villages of a fair hearing and fall within statutory exceptions to immunity | Defendant contended immunity still bars suit despite allegations | Ex parte communications and bias allegations are not covered by absolute litigation privilege and may defeat qualified immunity under § 52-557n(c) |
| Whether trial court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Dismissal was improper because § 52-557n(c) governs and the complaint alleges disqualifying misconduct that removes immunity | Trial court held litigation privilege removed jurisdiction by granting absolute immunity | Appellate Court reversed: trial court erred to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds and must consider § 52-557n(c) and factual allegations further |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Patrick’s Church Corp. v. Daniels, 113 Conn. 132 (Conn. 1931) (discusses presumption of fair action and broad discretion of zoning boards)
- Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549 (Conn. 1992) (factors for determining quasi-judicial nature of administrative proceedings)
- Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459 (Conn. 2007) (litigation privilege protects pertinent statements in judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings)
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2013) (history and scope of litigation privilege)
- Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C., 252 Conn. 623 (Conn. 2000) (functional approach to absolute judicial immunity; limits on absolute immunity)
- Bartram v. Zoning Commission, 136 Conn. 89 (Conn. 1949) (broad discretion of zoning authorities)
- Villages, LLC v. Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission, 149 Conn. App. 448 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014) (prior appellate decision affirming trial findings of bias/ex parte communications)