LLC v. Jan C. Trendowski (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff in this case, the law firm of Ouellette, Deganis & Gallagher, LLC, brought suit against the defendant, Jan Trendowski, alleging vexatious litigation due to the defendant's filing of a grievance against an associate in the plaintiff's law firm, a grievance which subsequently was terminated in the plaintiff's favor.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that he has absolute immunity from a law suit based upon the filing of a grievance complaint.   In support of this contention, the defendant relies upon Field v. Kearns, 43 Conn.App. 265, 268–69, 682 A.2d 148, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 942, 684 A.2d 711 (1996), overruled by Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338, 927 A.2d 304 (2007).¹  The plaintiff filed an objection wherein it argues that Field v. Kearns was overruled by our state Supreme Court in Rioux v. Barry, supra, 349 n.6. Defense counsel uses their best efforts to convince this court that Rioux did not overrule Field, this court, however agrees with the plaintiff.

Both Field and Rioux involved claims of vexatious litigation.   In deciding Rioux, the High Court held that “[i]t is unnecessary and undesirable to extend the additional protection afforded by the doctrine of absolute immunity to defendants in vexatious litigation claims.”  Rioux v. Barry, supra, 283 Conn. 349.   The court also stated:  “The defendants also rely on Field v. Kearns ․ In Field, the court concluded that absolute immunity applied to a vexatious litigation claim ․ The holding of Field is inconsistent with the holding of this opinion.”  (Citations omitted.)   Id., 349 n.6. The defendant essentially argues that because the Rioux court did not use the term “overruled” when referencing Field, the court did not intend to overrule Field.   This court disagrees.   The Rioux court used the word “inconsistent,” which is defined as:  “Lacking agreement among parts;  incompatible with another fact or claim ․” Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed.2009).

Accordingly, it is clear to this court that the Supreme Court in Rioux overruled Field and the motion to dismiss is denied.

BY THE COURT

Jack W. Fischer, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The Shepard's report on Field v. Kearns, supra, 43 Conn.App. 265, indicates that the case has been overruled by Rioux v. Barry, supra, 283 Conn. 338..  FN1. The Shepard's report on Field v. Kearns, supra, 43 Conn.App. 265, indicates that the case has been overruled by Rioux v. Barry, supra, 283 Conn. 338.

Fischer, Jack W., J.