Connecticut’s anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, statute, provides a unique procedural vehicle — the special motion to dismiss — to cut short frivolous litigation that is based on a defendant’s constitutionally protected activity
Upon a defendant’s showing that the litigation is based on such activity, the statute shifts the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate probable cause that its claims will prevail.
In this article published by Law360, Peter Zarella and Snigdha Mamillapalli discuss Aguilar v. Eick a recent case in the Connecticut Appellate Court held that the statute does not authorize any evidentiary hearing, and that a special motion to dismiss must be resolved on the pleadings, affidavits and submitted documents, without live testimony or any weighing of evidence by the trial court. The defendant in that case has secured an extension of time to file a petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court. If that petition is filed, and if the court grants it, the court may reconsider the availability and scope of a limited evidentiary hearing on a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Peter and Snigdha discuss the recent opinion and the case’s possible implications.