The Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld a lower court's decision to grant a special motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by Alan Kaufman against Natalie Jarnstedt. This ruling, issued on June 30, 2026, is significant as it reinforces the protections offered by the state's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which aims to protect individuals from meritless lawsuits that infringe on their free speech rights.
The case, Kaufman v. Synnott, revolves around allegations made by Kaufman and his wife against Jarnstedt and two other defendants, claiming defamation and civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false statements about their treatment of their dogs, prompting investigations by local authorities. The court's decision is important as it clarifies the application of the anti-SLAPP statute and the conditions under which attorney's fees can be awarded in such cases.
Background
The dispute began in 2019 when Alan Kaufman and his wife filed a lawsuit against Kathleen E. Synnott, Jarnstedt, and Sallyann Pelletier, claiming defamation and civil conspiracy. They alleged that the defendants reported them to animal control authorities, falsely accusing them of mistreating their dogs. The plaintiffs sought $2.75 million in damages for emotional distress and other claims.
In December 2019, Jarnstedt filed a special motion to dismiss the lawsuit under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute, which protects individuals from lawsuits that aim to silence their free speech on matters of public concern. The trial court granted this motion, leading to Kaufman's appeal. The court's ruling emphasized that the allegations against Jarnstedt were based on her right to petition the government regarding a matter of public concern, specifically animal welfare.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that it did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider the special motion to dismiss. The court clarified that Kaufman's argument was a challenge to how the court exercised its authority rather than a claim that the court lacked the power to adjudicate such matters.
The court ruled, "The trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the defendant’s special motion to dismiss..."
Furthermore, the court dismissed Kaufman's claims that the anti-SLAPP statute was unconstitutional, noting that these claims were not raised in a timely manner. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to award Jarnstedt $94,505.27 in attorney's fees and costs, rejecting Kaufman's interpretation that Jarnstedt did not incur these costs because her insurance company would ultimately pay them. The court stated that the statute's language did not support this interpretation.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving defamation and free speech in Connecticut. By affirming the lower court's decision, the Appellate Court reinforced the protections offered by the anti-SLAPP statute, which allows defendants to dismiss lawsuits that infringe on their rights to free speech and petitioning the government. This decision may encourage more individuals to speak out on public issues without fear of retaliation through litigation.
Additionally, the court's interpretation of the statute regarding the awarding of attorney's fees clarifies that defendants can recover costs even if they are covered by insurance. This aspect of the ruling may deter frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing critics, as it ensures that those who defend against such claims can seek compensation for their legal expenses.
What's Next
While Kaufman may seek further legal recourse, the ruling from the Connecticut Appellate Court is a significant setback for him. The court's decision is final unless Kaufman decides to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court. There are no indications of related cases pending that could influence this ruling.