Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 900 — Court Practice and Procedure
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-196a (2025)

Filing of special motion to dismiss based on exercise of certain state or federal constitutional rights in connection with matter of public concern. Court procedure

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) As used in this section:

(1) “Matter of public concern” means an issue related to (A) health or safety, (B) environmental, economic or community well-being, (C) the government, zoning and other regulatory matters, (D) a public official or public figure, or (E) an audiovisual work;

(2) “Right of free speech” means communicating, or conduct furthering communication, in a public forum on a matter of public concern;

(3) “Right to petition the government” means (A) communication in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, administrative, judicial or other governmental body, (B) communication that is reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review of a matter of public concern by a legislative, executive, administrative, judicial or other governmental body, or (C) communication that is reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to effect consideration of an issue by a legislative, executive, administrative, judicial or other governmental body;

(4) “Right of association” means communication among individuals who join together to collectively express, promote, pursue or defend common interests; and

(5) “Special motion to dismiss” means the motion permitted pursuant to this section.

(b) In any civil action in which a party files a complaint, counterclaim or cross claim against an opposing party that is based on the opposing party's exercise of its right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a matter of public concern, such opposing party may file a special motion to dismiss the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim.

(c) Any party filing a special motion to dismiss shall file such motion not later than thirty days after the return date of the complaint, or the filing of a counterclaim or cross claim described in subsection (b) of this section. The court, upon a showing of good cause by a party seeking to file a special motion to dismiss, may extend the time to file a special motion to dismiss.

(d) The court shall stay all discovery upon the filing of a special motion to dismiss. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until the court grants or denies the special motion to dismiss and any interlocutory appeal thereof. Notwithstanding the entry of an order to stay discovery, the court, upon motion of a party and a showing of good cause, or upon its own motion, may order specified and limited discovery relevant to the special motion to dismiss.

(e) (1) The court shall conduct an expedited hearing on a special motion to dismiss. The expedited hearing shall be held not later than sixty days after the date of filing of such special motion to dismiss, unless, (A) the court orders specified and limited discovery pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, in which case, the expedited hearing shall be held not later than sixty days after the date on which such specified and limited discovery must be completed, (B) the parties agree to a hearing date that is beyond the sixty-day period, or (C) the court, for good cause shown, is unable to schedule the hearing during the sixty-day period.

(2) When ruling on a special motion to dismiss, the court shall consider pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits of the parties attesting to the facts upon which liability or a defense, as the case may be, is based.

(3) The court shall grant a special motion to dismiss if the moving party makes an initial showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the opposing party's complaint, counterclaim or cross claim is based on the moving party's exercise of its right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a matter of public concern, unless the party that brought the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim sets forth with particularity the circumstances giving rise to the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim and demonstrates to the court that there is probable cause, considering all valid defenses, that the party will prevail on the merits of the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim.

(4) The court shall rule on a special motion to dismiss as soon as practicable.

(f) (1) If the court grants a special motion to dismiss under this section, the court shall award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney's fees, including such costs and fees incurred in connection with the filing of the special motion to dismiss.

(2) If the court denies a special motion to dismiss under this section and finds that such special motion to dismiss is frivolous and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the party opposing such special motion to dismiss.

(g) The findings or determinations made pursuant to subsections (e) and (f) of this section shall not be admitted into evidence at any later stage of the proceeding or in any subsequent action.

(h) The provisions of this section shall not: (1) Apply to an enforcement action that is brought in the name of the state or a political subdivision of the state by the Attorney General; (2) affect or limit the authority of a court to award sanctions, costs, attorney's fees or any other relief available under any statute, court rule or other authority; (3) affect, limit or preclude the right of a party filing a special motion to dismiss to any defense, remedy, immunity or privilege otherwise authorized by law; (4) affect the substantive law governing any asserted claim; (5) create a private right of action; or (6) apply to a common law or statutory claim for bodily injury or wrongful death, except the exclusion provided in this subdivision shall not apply to claims for (A) emotional distress unrelated to bodily injury or wrongful death or conjoined with a cause of action other than for bodily injury or wrongful death, or (B) defamation, libel or slander. The provisions of this subdivision shall not prohibit a plaintiff who brings a claim for bodily injury or wrongful death from filing a special motion to dismiss a counterclaim under the provisions of this section.

(P.A. 17-71, S. 1; P.A. 19-64, S. 17.)

History: P.A. 17-71 effective January 1, 2018, and applicable to any civil action filed on or after said date; P.A. 19-64 amended Subsec. (b) replacing “date of return” with “return date”, effective July 1, 2019.

Nothing in section limit's a trial court's discretion to order specified and limited discovery relevant to the special motion to dismiss beyond the “good cause” standard set forth in Subsec. (d). 336 C. 332.

Res judicata and collateral estoppel are appropriate defenses to consider in context of special motion to dismiss filed under section. 204 CA 818. Right to a hearing within sixty days is subject to a plaintiff's absolute right to withdraw an action at any time prior to a hearing, as afforded by Sec. 52-80. 217 CA 191.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: Sicignano v. Pearce, 325 A.3d 1127 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sicignano v. Pearce, 325 A.3d 1127 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 54× “’’ 9 General Statutes § 52-196a (f) (1) provides: ‘‘If the court grants a special motion to dismiss under this section, the court shall award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, including such costs and fees incurred in connection with the filing of the…”
Elder v. Kauffman, 254 A.3d 1001 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 26× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendants’ special motion to dismiss because (1) res judicata is not applicable to the anti- SLAPP1 statute, General Statutes § 52-196a,2 (2) res judicata is not applicable to this case, and (3) § 52-196a is…”
Mulvihill v. Spinnato, 326 A.3d 251 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 37× “13 In the present case, 12 When a court is presented with a motion to dismiss predicated on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, ‘‘it must be immediately acted upon by the court.”
Priore v. Haig, 280 A.3d 402 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 12× “Under this statutory scheme, a party may file a special motion to dismiss when the opposing party’s complaint is based on the moving party’s exercise of, among other things, the right of free speech or the right to petition the government in connection with a matter of public…”
Chapnick v. DiLauro, 275 A.3d 746 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 18× “The plaintiff Dominica Chapnick, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Randall Chapnick,1 appeals from the portion of the judgment of the trial court dismissing, pursuant to Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP2 statute, General Statutes § 52-196a, the counts of the complaint…”
Murphy v. Rosen, 329 A.3d 913 (Conn. 2025). · cites it 26× “Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy his burden of showing that there was probable cause that he would succeed on the merits of his defamation per se claim, as required by § 52-196a (e) (3).”
Pryor v. Brignole, 333 A.3d 1112 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 138× “3 General Statutes § 52-196a (e) (3) provides: ‘‘The court shall grant a special motion to dismiss if the moving party makes an initial showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the opposing party’s complaint, counterclaim or cross claim is based on the moving party’s…”
Aguilar v. Eick, 344 A.3d 263 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 101× “The plaintiff, Marcio Rene Aguilar, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the special motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Janet Eick, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-196a, Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute.”
Lafferty v. Jones, 327 A.3d 941 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 5× “6 Section 52-196a was amended by No. 19-64, § 17, of the 2019 Public Acts, which made changes to the statute that are not relevant to these appeals.”
Smith v. Supple, 293 A.3d 851 (Conn. 2023). · cites it 53× “* This court, having requested briefing from the parties on the issue of whether there was a final judgment for purposes of appellate jurisdiction by order dated July 20, 2022, it is hereby ordered that the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ special motion to dismiss, filed…”
Robinson v. V. D., 328 A.3d 198 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 52× “against an opposing party that is based on the opposing party’s exercise of its right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a matter of public…”
King. v. Hubbard, 288 A.3d 218 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 43× “See General Statutes § 52-196a (b); see also General Statutes § 52-196a (e) (3) (describing circumstances under which trial court must grant party’s special motion to dismiss). Although the statutory protection against SLAPP lawsuits does not create a substantive right, the…”
Show all 42 citing cases →
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-196a(b): 1 case
Ning v. Zyda, No. 3:23-cv-00395 (D. Conn. July 12, 2024).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-196a(e): 1 case
Ning v. Zyda, No. 3:23-cv-00395 (D. Conn. July 12, 2024).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-196a(e)(2): 2 cases
Lombardo, No. 3:25-cv-00768 (D. Conn. Mar. 17, 2026).
Ning v. Zyda, No. 3:23-cv-00395 (D. Conn. July 12, 2024).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-196a(e)(3): 1 case
Lombardo, No. 3:25-cv-00768 (D. Conn. Mar. 17, 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.