{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-11-03", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:fae3c7", "proof": "sha256:ca09c8b46ba8caea8e10de34cf1e4681b788260b373af8a43c396fdc5290a937", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "", "paragraphs": [ "para_1" ] }, { "title": "The “officially released” date that appears near the", "paragraphs": [ "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8" ] }, { "title": "All opinions are subject to modification and technical", "paragraphs": [ "para_10", "para_11" ] }, { "title": "Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event", "paragraphs": [ "para_13", "para_14" ] }, { "title": "Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports", "paragraphs": [ "para_16", "para_17" ] }, { "title": "The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an", "paragraphs": [ "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced", "paragraphs": [ "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28" ] }, { "title": "(AC 47598)", "paragraphs": [ "para_30" ] }, { "title": "Syllabus", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The plaintiffs, a dentist and two associated entities, which had previously", "paragraphs": [ "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42" ] }, { "title": "This court concluded that the plaintiffs waived their claim that a motion to", "paragraphs": [ "para_44", "para_45" ] }, { "title": "42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the plaintiffs’ failure to object at trial to the defendants’", "paragraphs": [ "para_47", "para_48" ] }, { "title": "The trial court properly concluded that qualified immunity required the", "paragraphs": [ "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim that the defendants’ press", "paragraphs": [ "para_59", "para_60" ] }, { "title": "(B)), as the plaintiffs failed to plead facts necessary to show that the press", "paragraphs": [ "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65" ] }, { "title": "The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants’", "paragraphs": [ "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiffs’ claim that the disclosure of their business matters and infor-", "paragraphs": [ "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79" ] }, { "title": "Argued January 6—officially released September 29, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Procedural History", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Action to recover damages for the defendants’ alleged", "paragraphs": [ "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90" ] }, { "title": "Benjamin Abrams, assistant attorney general, with", "paragraphs": [ "para_92", "para_93", "para_94" ] }, { "title": "Opinion", "paragraphs": [ "para_96" ] }, { "title": "Columbia Dental, P.C. (Columbia Dental), and Colum-", "paragraphs": [ "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103" ] }, { "title": "Social Services. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim (1) that", "paragraphs": [ "para_105", "para_106" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe court improperly dismissed their federal law claims", "paragraphs": [ "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120" ] }, { "title": "The following facts, as alleged in the plaintiffs’ June", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "20, 2023 amended complaint and set forth in the trial", "paragraphs": [ "para_123", "para_124" ] }, { "title": "1When reviewing a decision of the trial court to grant a motion to", "paragraphs": [ "para_126", "para_127" ] }, { "title": "See, e.g., Speer v. Skaats, 238 Conn. App. 736, 744, 357 A.3d 1120", "paragraphs": [ "para_129" ] }, { "title": "330 A.3d 209 (2025). Accordingly, our recitation of the facts and pro-", "paragraphs": [ "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142" ] }, { "title": "Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "District of Connecticut with respect to the qui tam action, including", "paragraphs": [ "para_145", "para_146" ] }, { "title": "Although the trial court did not consider the qui tam complaints and", "paragraphs": [ "para_148", "para_149", "para_150" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongan individual duly licensed by the Department of Public", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Health to practice general dentistry in this state,2 was", "paragraphs": [ "para_153" ] }, { "title": "Dental. Columbia Dental, a business with the principal", "paragraphs": [ "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158" ] }, { "title": "From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental", "paragraphs": [ "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164" ] }, { "title": "Mahoney, a dental assistant employed by Columbia Dental, who claimed", "paragraphs": [ "para_166", "para_167" ] }, { "title": "See 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b) (1) and (2) (2012). In their memorandum of", "paragraphs": [ "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173" ] }, { "title": "(government, for good cause shown, may move court for extensions of", "paragraphs": [ "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185" ] }, { "title": "2See, e.g., General Statutes §§ 20-106 and 20-107. Although § 20-107", "paragraphs": [ "para_187" ] }, { "title": "Acts 2019, No. 19-72, § 1; that amendment has no bearing on the merits", "paragraphs": [ "para_189" ] }, { "title": "3General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 20-112a provides: “A licensed", "paragraphs": [ "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201" ] }, { "title": "District of Connecticut5 regarding these irregularities", "paragraphs": [ "para_203", "para_204" ] }, { "title": "(United States)6 filed a qui tam action under seal against", "paragraphs": [ "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218" ] }, { "title": "20-126l.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "4Briefly stated, “[t]he [M]edicaid program, established in 1965 as", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1396", "paragraphs": [ "para_222", "para_223", "para_224" ] }, { "title": "680 A.2d 113 (1996); see also Szewczyk v. Dept. of Social Services, 77", "paragraphs": [ "para_226", "para_227" ] }, { "title": "5See United States ex rel. Mahoney v. Columbia Dental, P.C., United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States District Court, Docket No. 3:15-cv-918 (SRU) (D. Conn. Sep-", "paragraphs": [ "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233" ] }, { "title": "Department of Justice and on behalf of the Office of the Inspector Gen-", "paragraphs": [ "para_235", "para_236" ] }, { "title": "159 n.4 (2d Cir. 2026) (United States is real party in interest in qui tam", "paragraphs": [ "para_238" ] }, { "title": "31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b) (1) (“A person may bring a civil action for a violation", "paragraphs": [ "para_240", "para_241" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongsubsequently was added as a coplaintiff in the qui tam", "paragraphs": [ "para_243", "para_244", "para_245" ] }, { "title": "In the qui tam action,8 the complaint alleged that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258" ] }, { "title": "8“Qui tam is short for qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in", "paragraphs": [ "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269" ] }, { "title": "Martin Marietta Corp., 60 F.3d 995, 997 n.2 (2d Cir. 1995) (qui tam", "paragraphs": [ "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274" ] }, { "title": "CV-07-5015198 (May 15, 2008) (qui tam actions augment law enforce-", "paragraphs": [ "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281" ] }, { "title": "9In the qui tam complaint, Mahoney alleged, inter alia, that Moham-", "paragraphs": [ "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongfederal governments alleged that unlicensed individuals", "paragraphs": [ "para_288" ] }, { "title": "District Court for the District of Connecticut unsealed", "paragraphs": [ "para_290" ] }, { "title": "The United States, the state, Mahoney, and the plain-", "paragraphs": [ "para_292", "para_293" ] }, { "title": "Mahoney v. Columbia Dental, P.C., United States Dis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298" ] }, { "title": "Columbia Dental, nor a concession by the United States", "paragraphs": [ "para_300" ] }, { "title": "As part of the settlement agreement, Mohammadi and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Columbia Dental agreed to pay $300,000 to the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States and the state, secured by a stipulated judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_304", "para_305" ] }, { "title": "Claims Act action were dismissed with prejudice. Fur-", "paragraphs": [ "para_307" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi’s license to practice dentistry; nor did the", "paragraphs": [ "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312" ] }, { "title": "On July 30, 2020, Mohammadi learned that Tong", "paragraphs": [ "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319" ] }, { "title": "In its memorandum of decision, the trial court dis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_321", "para_322" ] }, { "title": "(licensed dentist may delegate taking of X-rays to dental assistant if", "paragraphs": [ "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331" ] }, { "title": "10The October 1, 2020 press release provides in relevant part: “Attorney", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "General William Tong, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Department", "paragraphs": [ "para_334", "para_335" ] }, { "title": "Dental, P.C., Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, L.L.C., and Abbas", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mohammadi, D.D.S. (collectively ‘Columbia Dental’), regarding over-", "paragraphs": [ "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342" ] }, { "title": "False Claims Act, the Office of the Attorney General conducted a joint", "paragraphs": [ "para_344" ] }, { "title": "Inspector General/Office of Investigations and the Office of the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States Attorney. The investigation developed substantial evidence", "paragraphs": [ "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352" ] }, { "title": "Dental Assisting National Board (DANB). Connecticut law requires", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "DANB certification of dental assistants before they are allowed to", "paragraphs": [ "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358" ] }, { "title": "30, 2015, Columbia Dental routinely caused claims for payment to be", "paragraphs": [ "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364" ] }, { "title": "Columbia Dental also routinely submitted claims for reimbursement", "paragraphs": [ "para_366" ] }, { "title": "The statutory requirement that dental assistants be DANB certified", "paragraphs": [ "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. TongThe court further stated that the plaintiffs had alleged", "paragraphs": [ "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377" ] }, { "title": "Dental repeatedly overcharged the Connecticut Medical", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Assistance Program, and that it implied that Columbia", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dental was responsible for the misconduct rather than", "paragraphs": [ "para_381", "para_382", "para_383" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi had subsequently made efforts to address", "paragraphs": [ "para_385", "para_386" ] }, { "title": "The trial court further stated in its memorandum of", "paragraphs": [ "para_388", "para_389", "para_390" ] }, { "title": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) The plaintiffs fur-", "paragraphs": [ "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408" ] }, { "title": "S. Gifford of the Department of Social Services (DSS), administering", "paragraphs": [ "para_410", "para_411" ] }, { "title": "Office of the Inspector General/Office of Investigations, the Office of", "paragraphs": [ "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417" ] }, { "title": "In their June 20, 2023 amended complaint, the plain-", "paragraphs": [ "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431" ] }, { "title": "Act (CUTPA), § 42-110a et seq.; count five alleged a", "paragraphs": [ "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445" ] }, { "title": "On August 21, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss", "paragraphs": [ "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthose claims were barred for various reasons, including", "paragraphs": [ "para_455", "para_456" ] }, { "title": "2023, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in support", "paragraphs": [ "para_458" ] }, { "title": "On April 18, 2024, the court, Vatti, J., issued a memo-", "paragraphs": [ "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469" ] }, { "title": "11The trial court did not consider the qui tam complaints or the docket", "paragraphs": [ "para_471", "para_472" ] }, { "title": "12Title 42 of the United States Code, § 1983, provides: “Every person", "paragraphs": [ "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484" ] }, { "title": "Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Our Supreme Court has explained that § “1983, aptly called the work-", "paragraphs": [ "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490" ] }, { "title": "1983 claims often are filed in federal court, but state courts unquestion-", "paragraphs": [ "para_492" ] }, { "title": "(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mangiafico", "paragraphs": [ "para_494" ] }, { "title": "Jan G. v. Semple, 202 Conn. App. 202, 206 n.5, 244 A.3d 644 (§ 1983", "paragraphs": [ "para_496", "para_497" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongof Appeals for the Second Circuit, provide particular", "paragraphs": [ "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508" ] }, { "title": "Here, the defendants argue that the federal law claims", "paragraphs": [ "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518" ] }, { "title": "The trial court proceeded to address each of the counts", "paragraphs": [ "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530" ] }, { "title": "To prevail on § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove that some person", "paragraphs": [ "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535" ] }, { "title": "13On appeal, the plaintiffs do not challenge the dismissal of their", "paragraphs": [ "para_537", "para_538" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongcount one of the amended complaint alleging a violation", "paragraphs": [ "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2004), observed that “deleterious effects", "paragraphs": [ "para_550", "para_551", "para_552" ] }, { "title": "The court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to", "paragraphs": [ "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563" ] }, { "title": "As to count two of the amended complaint, which", "paragraphs": [ "para_565" ] }, { "title": "15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (1) (B),16 the trial court determined", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "14The stigma-plus “theory is limited by the well-established doctrine", "paragraphs": [ "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573" ] }, { "title": "788 Fed. Appx. 788, 794 (2d Cir. 2019) (describing stigma-plus claim as", "paragraphs": [ "para_575", "para_576" ] }, { "title": "15See part II B of this opinion for the relevant statutory language of", "paragraphs": [ "para_578" ] }, { "title": "16Title 15 of the United States Code, § 1125 (a) (1), provides in relevant", "paragraphs": [ "para_580" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthat the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants’", "paragraphs": [ "para_582", "para_583", "para_584" ] }, { "title": "The trial court succinctly determined that counts", "paragraphs": [ "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594" ] }, { "title": "Commission Act] violation.” Count four of the amended", "paragraphs": [ "para_596", "para_597" ] }, { "title": "F.2d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1985), the trial court explained", "paragraphs": [ "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602" ] }, { "title": "As to count five of the amended complaint, which", "paragraphs": [ "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610" ] }, { "title": "United States and/or its traditions are not protected by", "paragraphs": [ "para_612", "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe liberty or property interests of which they allegedly", "paragraphs": [ "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641" ] }, { "title": "Count six of the amended complaint set out an alleged", "paragraphs": [ "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658" ] }, { "title": "For these reasons, the court concluded that count six of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe amended complaint was subject to dismissal on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_661" ] }, { "title": "Count seven of the amended complaint alleged a viola-", "paragraphs": [ "para_663" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiffs contended that this count “properly alleges", "paragraphs": [ "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673" ] }, { "title": "17“Although the prototypical equal protection claim involves discrimi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_675", "para_676", "para_677", "para_678" ] }, { "title": "States] Supreme Court [has] affirmed the validity of such class of one", "paragraphs": [ "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688", "para_689", "para_690", "para_691", "para_692", "para_693", "para_694", "para_695" ] }, { "title": "Accordingly, to succeed on a class-of-one claim, a plaintiff must estab-", "paragraphs": [ "para_697", "para_698", "para_699", "para_700", "para_701", "para_702", "para_703", "para_704" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongallege that these nine other parties were also health care", "paragraphs": [ "para_706", "para_707", "para_708", "para_709", "para_710", "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714" ] }, { "title": "In count eight of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_716", "para_717", "para_718", "para_719", "para_720", "para_721" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court explained that this constitutional provi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_723", "para_724", "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728" ] }, { "title": "In its conclusion, the trial court stated: “[C]ount one", "paragraphs": [ "para_730" ] }, { "title": "18Article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution provides: “All", "paragraphs": [ "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738" ] }, { "title": "Court, Docket No. 3:16cv62 (MPS) (D. Conn. August 9, 2016); Sente-", "paragraphs": [ "para_740", "para_741" ] }, { "title": "20Nevertheless, the trial court continued its analysis and determined", "paragraphs": [ "para_743", "para_744", "para_745" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongcapacit[ies] . . . pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign", "paragraphs": [ "para_747", "para_748", "para_749", "para_750", "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757", "para_758", "para_759", "para_760", "para_761", "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768", "para_769", "para_770" ] }, { "title": "(Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_772" ] }, { "title": "708, 713–14, 349 A.3d 1105 (2025), cert. denied, 354", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Conn. 909, 349 A.3d 1093 (2026); see also Manginelli", "paragraphs": [ "para_775", "para_776" ] }, { "title": "Additionally, we have stated that “[o]ur review of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_778", "para_779", "para_780", "para_781", "para_782", "para_783", "para_784" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongjurisdiction should be indulged.” (Internal quotation", "paragraphs": [ "para_786" ] }, { "title": "Addiction Services, 210 Conn. App. 788, 793, 271 A.3d", "paragraphs": [ "para_788", "para_789", "para_790", "para_791", "para_792", "para_793", "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801", "para_802", "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812" ] }, { "title": "(Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted;", "paragraphs": [ "para_814" ] }, { "title": "Conn. 642, 651–52, 974 A.2d 669 (2009); see also Civic", "paragraphs": [ "para_816" ] }, { "title": "328 A.3d 225 (2024), cert. denied, 351 Conn. 919, 333", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A.3d 103 (2025). In the present case, the court considered", "paragraphs": [ "para_819", "para_820" ] }, { "title": "Next, we discuss briefly the principles relating to quali-", "paragraphs": [ "para_822" ] }, { "title": "643 A.2d 1226 (1994), our Supreme Court explained that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tong“[t]he standard of qualified immunity that protects pub-", "paragraphs": [ "para_825", "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830", "para_831", "para_832", "para_833", "para_834", "para_835", "para_836", "para_837", "para_838", "para_839", "para_840", "para_841" ] }, { "title": "Conn. App. 605, 612, 88 A.3d 552, cert. denied, 312", "paragraphs": [ "para_843", "para_844", "para_845" ] }, { "title": "230 Conn. 735, 744–47, 646 A.2d 152 (1994) (discuss-", "paragraphs": [ "para_847", "para_848", "para_849", "para_850" ] }, { "title": "I", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The plaintiffs first claim that the defendants’ use", "paragraphs": [ "para_853", "para_854", "para_855", "para_856", "para_857", "para_858" ] }, { "title": "21At the outset, we note that, in regard to this issue, the plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_860", "para_861", "para_862", "para_863" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongfailed to challenge the use of the motion to dismiss before", "paragraphs": [ "para_865", "para_866", "para_867", "para_868", "para_869", "para_870", "para_871", "para_872", "para_873" ] }, { "title": "Although we agree with the plaintiffs that a motion to", "paragraphs": [ "para_875", "para_876", "para_877", "para_878", "para_879" ] }, { "title": "Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-30 (a),22 the defendants", "paragraphs": [ "para_881", "para_882", "para_883", "para_884", "para_885", "para_886", "para_887", "para_888", "para_889", "para_890", "para_891", "para_892", "para_893", "para_894", "para_895", "para_896", "para_897", "para_898" ] }, { "title": "22Practice Book § 10-30 (a) provides: “A motion to dismiss shall be", "paragraphs": [ "para_900", "para_901", "para_902" ] }, { "title": "23The trial court held a hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss", "paragraphs": [ "para_904", "para_905" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongof decision, the trial court determined that qualified", "paragraphs": [ "para_907", "para_908", "para_909", "para_910", "para_911", "para_912", "para_913", "para_914", "para_915", "para_916", "para_917" ] }, { "title": "App. 694, 357 A.3d 1105 (2026), in which this court", "paragraphs": [ "para_919", "para_920", "para_921", "para_922", "para_923", "para_924", "para_925", "para_926" ] }, { "title": "695, the incarcerated plaintiff filed an action against", "paragraphs": [ "para_928", "para_929", "para_930", "para_931", "para_932", "para_933", "para_934", "para_935", "para_936", "para_937", "para_938" ] }, { "title": "We then considered the defendants’ alternative ground", "paragraphs": [ "para_940" ] }, { "title": "App. 506, 515 n.16, 43 A.3d 199 (“[w]e digress to bring to the atten-", "paragraphs": [ "para_942", "para_943", "para_944", "para_945" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongfor affirmance—that the plaintiff’s claims were barred", "paragraphs": [ "para_947", "para_948" ] }, { "title": "In addressing the defendants’ claim that qualified", "paragraphs": [ "para_950", "para_951", "para_952" ] }, { "title": "702. Next, we observed that, “[u]nder federal law, quali-", "paragraphs": [ "para_954" ] }, { "title": "Id., 703. This court then noted that the defendants had", "paragraphs": [ "para_956", "para_957", "para_958", "para_959", "para_960", "para_961", "para_962", "para_963", "para_964", "para_965", "para_966", "para_967", "para_968", "para_969" ] }, { "title": "(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Id., 705; see also McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 435", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2d Cir. 2004). We then reasoned that, in contrast, both", "paragraphs": [ "para_973", "para_974", "para_975", "para_976" ] }, { "title": "1983 action does not implicate the subject matter juris-", "paragraphs": [ "para_978", "para_979", "para_980", "para_981", "para_982", "para_983", "para_984", "para_985" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tong§ 1983 claims.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 709. As a special", "paragraphs": [ "para_987", "para_988", "para_989", "para_990", "para_991", "para_992", "para_993" ] }, { "title": "534 n.13, 325 A.3d 938 (2024) (defense of qualified", "paragraphs": [ "para_995", "para_996" ] }, { "title": "89 F.4th 403, 407 (2d Cir. 2023) (qualified immunity is", "paragraphs": [ "para_998", "para_999" ] }, { "title": "3d 109, 124–25 (D. Conn. 2018) (qualified immunity", "paragraphs": [ "para_1001", "para_1002" ] }, { "title": "This court follows the principle of horizontal stare deci-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1004", "para_1005" ] }, { "title": "512, 531, 360 A.3d 1142 (2026), petition for cert. filed", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Conn. June 9, 2026) (No. 250467). Our recent decision", "paragraphs": [ "para_1008", "para_1009", "para_1010", "para_1011", "para_1012", "para_1013", "para_1014", "para_1015", "para_1016" ] }, { "title": "We conclude, therefore, that a motion to dismiss is not", "paragraphs": [ "para_1018", "para_1019" ] }, { "title": "25See Practice Book § 10-39 (motion to strike); Practice Book § 17-44", "paragraphs": [ "para_1021" ] }, { "title": "26The trial court did not have the benefit of our analysis, as our decision", "paragraphs": [ "para_1023" ] }, { "title": "April 28, 2026, approximately two years after the trial court’s decision", "paragraphs": [ "para_1025" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. TongThe defendants argue, inter alia, however, that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1027", "para_1028", "para_1029", "para_1030", "para_1031", "para_1032", "para_1033" ] }, { "title": "Holdings, Inc., 240 Conn. App. 212, 229, ___ A.3d ___", "paragraphs": [ "para_1035", "para_1036" ] }, { "title": "Litchfield Visitation Center, 216 Conn. App. 869, 878–", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "79, 287 A.3d 188 (2022). We agree with the defendants", "paragraphs": [ "para_1039", "para_1040", "para_1041", "para_1042", "para_1043", "para_1044", "para_1045" ] }, { "title": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Cleaning &", "paragraphs": [ "para_1047", "para_1048" ] }, { "title": "Furthermore, our appellate courts have determined", "paragraphs": [ "para_1050", "para_1051", "para_1052", "para_1053" ] }, { "title": "(2004) (although use of motion to dismiss to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "para_1055", "para_1056", "para_1057", "para_1058", "para_1059", "para_1060" ] }, { "title": "Inc., 72 Conn. App. 601, 606 n.6, 806 A.2d 567 (2002)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(same); Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238, 241", "paragraphs": [ "para_1063", "para_1064", "para_1065" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongraise claim that action was not saved by § 52-592); see", "paragraphs": [ "para_1067" ] }, { "title": "304 (1983) (“No objection has been raised to the proce-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1069", "para_1070", "para_1071", "para_1072", "para_1073", "para_1074", "para_1075" ] }, { "title": "In light of the facts and circumstances of the present", "paragraphs": [ "para_1077", "para_1078", "para_1079", "para_1080", "para_1081", "para_1082", "para_1083", "para_1084", "para_1085", "para_1086" ] }, { "title": "II", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We now turn to the plaintiffs’ claim that the trial", "paragraphs": [ "para_1089", "para_1090", "para_1091", "para_1092", "para_1093", "para_1094", "para_1095", "para_1096", "para_1097", "para_1098", "para_1099", "para_1100", "para_1101" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongentitled to prevail on their qualified immunity defense.27", "paragraphs": [ "para_1103" ] }, { "title": "We begin with our standard of review. “Whether an", "paragraphs": [ "para_1105", "para_1106", "para_1107" ] }, { "title": "127 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1994).” Fleming v. Bridgeport, 284", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Conn. 502, 518, 935 A.2d 126 (2007); Miller v. Doe, 214", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Conn. App. 35, 45, 279 A.3d 286 (2022); see also Horn", "paragraphs": [ "para_1111" ] }, { "title": "Next, we identify the relevant legal principles regard-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1113", "para_1114", "para_1115", "para_1116", "para_1117", "para_1118", "para_1119" ] }, { "title": "Furthermore, in applying federal law in those instances", "paragraphs": [ "para_1121" ] }, { "title": "27The plaintiffs also claim that the trial court improperly construed", "paragraphs": [ "para_1123" ] }, { "title": "Specifically, they assert that § 31 of the settlement agreement “consti-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1125", "para_1126", "para_1127", "para_1128", "para_1129", "para_1130", "para_1131", "para_1132", "para_1133", "para_1134", "para_1135", "para_1136", "para_1137", "para_1138", "para_1139", "para_1140", "para_1141", "para_1142", "para_1143" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongwe generally give special consideration to decisions of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1145", "para_1146", "para_1147", "para_1148", "para_1149", "para_1150", "para_1151", "para_1152", "para_1153", "para_1154", "para_1155", "para_1156", "para_1157", "para_1158" ] }, { "title": "Courts are permitted to exercise their sound discretion", "paragraphs": [ "para_1160", "para_1161", "para_1162", "para_1163", "para_1164", "para_1165", "para_1166", "para_1167", "para_1168", "para_1169", "para_1170", "para_1171", "para_1172", "para_1173", "para_1174", "para_1175", "para_1176", "para_1177", "para_1178", "para_1179", "para_1180", "para_1181", "para_1182" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongright . . . then he is protected by qualified immunity.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Miller v. Doe, supra, 214 Conn. App. 45–47; see also", "paragraphs": [ "para_1186", "para_1187", "para_1188", "para_1189", "para_1190" ] }, { "title": "160 Conn. App. 294, 301, 124 A.3d 977 (2015) (United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States Supreme Court has recognized qualified immu-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1193", "para_1194", "para_1195", "para_1196", "para_1197", "para_1198", "para_1199", "para_1200" ] }, { "title": "A", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Count one of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint sets", "paragraphs": [ "para_1203", "para_1204", "para_1205", "para_1206", "para_1207", "para_1208", "para_1209", "para_1210", "para_1211", "para_1212", "para_1213" ] }, { "title": "In count one of their amended complaint, the plain-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1215", "para_1216", "para_1217", "para_1218", "para_1219", "para_1220", "para_1221", "para_1222", "para_1223", "para_1224", "para_1225", "para_1226", "para_1227" ] }, { "title": "October 1, 2020, Columbia Dental had approximately", "paragraphs": [ "para_1229", "para_1230", "para_1231", "para_1232", "para_1233", "para_1234" ] }, { "title": "The amended complaint further alleged that, as a direct", "paragraphs": [ "para_1236", "para_1237" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi. As a result, the plaintiffs suffered “a sig-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1239", "para_1240", "para_1241", "para_1242", "para_1243", "para_1244", "para_1245", "para_1246", "para_1247", "para_1248", "para_1249", "para_1250", "para_1251", "para_1252", "para_1253" ] }, { "title": "The amended complaint also alleged that the defen-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1255", "para_1256", "para_1257", "para_1258", "para_1259", "para_1260" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongstatements contained therein, and (2) the defendants’", "paragraphs": [ "para_1262" ] }, { "title": "General Statutes § 20-103a (b).28", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In addressing count one of the amended complaint, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1265", "para_1266", "para_1267", "para_1268", "para_1269", "para_1270", "para_1271", "para_1272" ] }, { "title": "28General Statutes § 20-103a provides: “(a) The State Dental Commis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1274", "para_1275", "para_1276", "para_1277", "para_1278", "para_1279", "para_1280", "para_1281" ] }, { "title": "Commission, may issue regulations to implement the provisions of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1283", "para_1284", "para_1285" ] }, { "title": "Dental Association and the American Dental Association and accepted", "paragraphs": [ "para_1287", "para_1288", "para_1289", "para_1290", "para_1291", "para_1292", "para_1293", "para_1294" ] }, { "title": "Members shall not be compensated for their services. Any member who", "paragraphs": [ "para_1296", "para_1297", "para_1298", "para_1299", "para_1300", "para_1301", "para_1302", "para_1303", "para_1304", "para_1305", "para_1306", "para_1307", "para_1308", "para_1309", "para_1310", "para_1311", "para_1312", "para_1313", "para_1314", "para_1315", "para_1316", "para_1317", "para_1318", "para_1319", "para_1320", "para_1321", "para_1322", "para_1323", "para_1324", "para_1325", "para_1326", "para_1327", "para_1328", "para_1329", "para_1330", "para_1331", "para_1332", "para_1333" ] }, { "title": "The Second Circuit has recognized that defamation", "paragraphs": [ "para_1335", "para_1336", "para_1337" ] }, { "title": "645 Fed. Appx. 93, 95 (2d Cir. 2016). The stigma-plus", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "29The trial court observed that § 20-103a (b) “only establishes duties", "paragraphs": [ "para_1340" ] }, { "title": "Commission. . . . Given the lack of any express language in the statute", "paragraphs": [ "para_1342", "para_1343" ] }, { "title": "State Dental Commission for a dentist accused of Medicaid billing fraud", "paragraphs": [ "para_1345", "para_1346" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongdoctrine, however, affords a party, in limited circum-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1348", "para_1349" ] }, { "title": "Utica, supra, 38; see also Mudge v. Zugalla, 939 F.3d", "paragraphs": [ "para_1351", "para_1352", "para_1353", "para_1354" ] }, { "title": "(1) the utterance of a statement sufficiently derogatory", "paragraphs": [ "para_1356", "para_1357", "para_1358", "para_1359", "para_1360", "para_1361", "para_1362", "para_1363", "para_1364", "para_1365", "para_1366", "para_1367" ] }, { "title": "636, 668, 280 A.3d 402 (2022) (D’Auria, J., concurring", "paragraphs": [ "para_1369", "para_1370", "para_1371", "para_1372" ] }, { "title": "On appeal, the plaintiffs present several arguments", "paragraphs": [ "para_1374", "para_1375", "para_1376", "para_1377" ] }, { "title": "States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,30 the plain-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1379", "para_1380", "para_1381" ] }, { "title": "Circuit has unequivocally stated that the second prong of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "30See Bursac v. Suozzi, 22 Misc. 3d 328, 342, 868 N.Y.S.2d 470", "paragraphs": [ "para_1384", "para_1385" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe stigma-plus test requires a state imposed burden on or", "paragraphs": [ "para_1387", "para_1388" ] }, { "title": "Waronker Hempstead Union Free School District, 788", "paragraphs": [ "para_1390", "para_1391", "para_1392", "para_1393" ] }, { "title": "302; see, e.g., Randolph v. Tung, United States District", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court, Docket No. 3:24-cv-1645-OAW (D. Conn. June", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "29, 2026) (allegations of deleterious effects of allegedly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1397", "para_1398", "para_1399", "para_1400" ] }, { "title": "284, 291, 294–97 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (allegations of dimin-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1402", "para_1403", "para_1404" ] }, { "title": "Molina, 826 F. Supp. 3d 416, 435–37 (E.D.N.Y. 2026)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(although plaintiff sufficiently alleged state imposed", "paragraphs": [ "para_1407", "para_1408", "para_1409", "para_1410", "para_1411", "para_1412", "para_1413" ] }, { "title": "State action must accompany both prongs of the stigma-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1415", "para_1416" ] }, { "title": "States District Court, Docket No. 98-CV-0778 FJS GLS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(N.D.N.Y. August 3, 2000), aff’d, 11 Fed. Appx. 31 (2d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cir. 2001). Indeed, the Second Circuit has expressly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1420", "para_1421", "para_1422", "para_1423", "para_1424", "para_1425" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tong18 F.3d 992, 1001 (2d Cir. 1994); see also Paterno v. City", "paragraphs": [ "para_1427" ] }, { "title": "17 Civ. 8278 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018), aff’d, 781", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Fed. Appx. 15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 589 U.S. 1060, 140", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "S. Ct. 499, 205 L. Ed. 2d 319 (2019). We therefore reject", "paragraphs": [ "para_1431", "para_1432", "para_1433", "para_1434", "para_1435", "para_1436", "para_1437", "para_1438", "para_1439", "para_1440", "para_1441", "para_1442", "para_1443", "para_1444" ] }, { "title": "31The plaintiffs argue that the trial court failed to assign proper weight", "paragraphs": [ "para_1446" ] }, { "title": "2005). Specifically, they assert that Velez stands for the proposition", "paragraphs": [ "para_1448", "para_1449", "para_1450", "para_1451", "para_1452", "para_1453", "para_1454", "para_1455", "para_1456", "para_1457" ] }, { "title": "89. The court further explained that the stigma and the “plus” must be", "paragraphs": [ "para_1459", "para_1460", "para_1461", "para_1462", "para_1463", "para_1464", "para_1465" ] }, { "title": "Id. We disagree, therefore, with the plaintiffs’ argument that, based on", "paragraphs": [ "para_1467", "para_1468" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. TongNext, the plaintiffs argue that the failure to afford", "paragraphs": [ "para_1470", "para_1471", "para_1472" ] }, { "title": "Statutes §§] 19a-17, 20-103a (b), 20-114 (a) (5), 20-114", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(a) (8) and 20-114 (b) (3), analyzed together, unequivo-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1475", "para_1476", "para_1477", "para_1478", "para_1479", "para_1480", "para_1481", "para_1482", "para_1483", "para_1484", "para_1485", "para_1486" ] }, { "title": "The defendants respond that the plaintiffs have not", "paragraphs": [ "para_1488", "para_1489", "para_1490", "para_1491", "para_1492", "para_1493", "para_1494", "para_1495", "para_1496", "para_1497", "para_1498", "para_1499", "para_1500" ] }, { "title": "We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs have failed to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1502", "para_1503", "para_1504", "para_1505", "para_1506" ] }, { "title": "33In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs assert that, in addition to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1508" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthese reasons, we conclude that the amended complaint", "paragraphs": [ "para_1510", "para_1511", "para_1512", "para_1513" ] }, { "title": "B", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Count two of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint set", "paragraphs": [ "para_1516", "para_1517", "para_1518", "para_1519", "para_1520", "para_1521", "para_1522", "para_1523", "para_1524", "para_1525", "para_1526" ] }, { "title": "Section 19a-17 (a) sets forth the various actions that a board such as", "paragraphs": [ "para_1528", "para_1529", "para_1530", "para_1531", "para_1532" ] }, { "title": "Although § 19a-17 has been amended since the events underlying this", "paragraphs": [ "para_1534", "para_1535", "para_1536" ] }, { "title": "Subdivisions (5) and (8) of § 20-114 (a) provide, respectively, that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1538" ] }, { "title": "19a-17 for “the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1540", "para_1541", "para_1542" ] }, { "title": "Section 20-114 (b) provides in relevant part: “For purposes of subdi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1544", "para_1545", "para_1546", "para_1547", "para_1548", "para_1549", "para_1550" ] }, { "title": "We iterate that, as the plaintiffs have not been subject to any disciplin-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1552", "para_1553" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). Specifically, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1555", "para_1556", "para_1557", "para_1558", "para_1559" ] }, { "title": "(a). Further, the plaintiffs claim that, as a result, they", "paragraphs": [ "para_1561", "para_1562" ] }, { "title": "The trial court determined that the plaintiffs’", "paragraphs": [ "para_1564" ] }, { "title": "34The United States Supreme Court has stated that 15 U.S.C. § 1125", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(a) “creates two distinct bases of liability: false association, § 1125 (a)", "paragraphs": [ "para_1567", "para_1568", "para_1569", "para_1570", "para_1571" ] }, { "title": "2025). In the present case, the trial court noted in its memorandum of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1573", "para_1574", "para_1575", "para_1576" ] }, { "title": "On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that their amended complaint alleged", "paragraphs": [ "para_1578" ] }, { "title": "Act. As the plaintiffs did not allege or pursue before the trial court a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1580", "para_1581", "para_1582", "para_1583", "para_1584", "para_1585", "para_1586", "para_1587", "para_1588", "para_1589", "para_1590", "para_1591", "para_1592", "para_1593", "para_1594" ] }, { "title": "Guddo v. Guddo, 185 Conn. App. 283, 286–87, 196 A.3d 1246 (2018);", "paragraphs": [ "para_1596", "para_1597" ] }, { "title": "A.3d ___ (2026) (axiomatic that claims of error ordinarily will not be", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe defendants’ press release constituted a commercial", "paragraphs": [ "para_1600", "para_1601", "para_1602", "para_1603", "para_1604", "para_1605", "para_1606", "para_1607", "para_1608" ] }, { "title": "The relevant statutory language provides: “(1) Any", "paragraphs": [ "para_1610", "para_1611", "para_1612", "para_1613", "para_1614", "para_1615", "para_1616", "para_1617", "para_1618", "para_1619", "para_1620", "para_1621" ] }, { "title": "The Second Circuit has stated that, “to constitute", "paragraphs": [ "para_1623", "para_1624" ] }, { "title": "(2) made for the purpose of influencing consumers to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1626", "para_1627", "para_1628", "para_1629", "para_1630", "para_1631", "para_1632", "para_1633", "para_1634" ] }, { "title": "Accordingly, we limit our consideration of the plaintiffs’ claim to one", "paragraphs": [ "para_1636", "para_1637", "para_1638", "para_1639" ] }, { "title": "(a) (1) (B).35 We agree with the court’s analysis that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1641", "para_1642", "para_1643", "para_1644", "para_1645", "para_1646", "para_1647", "para_1648" ] }, { "title": "Social Services, and, therefore, the plaintiffs’ claim of a", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lanham Act violation fails. To the extent the plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_1651", "para_1652", "para_1653", "para_1654" ] }, { "title": "We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1656", "para_1657", "para_1658" ] }, { "title": "C", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Count five of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint set", "paragraphs": [ "para_1661" ] }, { "title": "35We, therefore, need not address each of the arguments set forth", "paragraphs": [ "para_1663" ] }, { "title": "We do note, however, that the defendants’ contention that their press", "paragraphs": [ "para_1665", "para_1666", "para_1667", "para_1668", "para_1669" ] }, { "title": "S. Ct. 2875, 77 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1983) (although core notion of commer-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1671", "para_1672", "para_1673", "para_1674", "para_1675", "para_1676", "para_1677" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe plaintiffs’ rights to substantive due process, spe-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1679", "para_1680", "para_1681", "para_1682" ] }, { "title": "On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court, in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1684", "para_1685", "para_1686", "para_1687" ] }, { "title": "United States Supreme Court in County of Sacramento", "paragraphs": [ "para_1689", "para_1690", "para_1691", "para_1692", "para_1693", "para_1694" ] }, { "title": "In count five of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_1696", "para_1697", "para_1698", "para_1699" ] }, { "title": "The amended complaint further alleged that Mohammadi", "paragraphs": [ "para_1701", "para_1702", "para_1703", "para_1704" ] }, { "title": "In dismissing count five, the trial court concluded", "paragraphs": [ "para_1706", "para_1707", "para_1708", "para_1709", "para_1710", "para_1711", "para_1712", "para_1713", "para_1714", "para_1715", "para_1716" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongdoes not encompass all property rights. It then concluded", "paragraphs": [ "para_1718", "para_1719", "para_1720", "para_1721" ] }, { "title": "The trial court further determined that, reading the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1723", "para_1724", "para_1725", "para_1726" ] }, { "title": "First, the court stated that reputation alone is not a lib-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1728", "para_1729", "para_1730", "para_1731", "para_1732", "para_1733", "para_1734", "para_1735", "para_1736", "para_1737", "para_1738", "para_1739", "para_1740", "para_1741", "para_1742", "para_1743" ] }, { "title": "We begin with a summary of the relevant legal prin-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1745", "para_1746", "para_1747", "para_1748", "para_1749", "para_1750", "para_1751", "para_1752" ] }, { "title": "Federal Bank, 175 F.4th 397, 406 (2d Cir. 2026); see also", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In re Gabriella M., 221 Conn. App. 827, 835 n.11, 303", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A.3d 319, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 925, 304 A.3d 443", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tong(2023). The United States Supreme Court, however, has", "paragraphs": [ "para_1757", "para_1758", "para_1759", "para_1760", "para_1761", "para_1762", "para_1763", "para_1764", "para_1765", "para_1766", "para_1767" ] }, { "title": "(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_1769" ] }, { "title": "Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997); see also County of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1771" ] }, { "title": "The Second Circuit utilizes the following test: “The", "paragraphs": [ "para_1773", "para_1774", "para_1775", "para_1776", "para_1777", "para_1778", "para_1779", "para_1780", "para_1781", "para_1782", "para_1783" ] }, { "title": "211 L. Ed. 2d 31 (2021); see also Matzell v. Annucci, 64", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "F.4th 425, 436 (2d Cir. 2023); Jordan v. Quiros, United", "paragraphs": [ "para_1786", "para_1787" ] }, { "title": "In the present case, the trial court focused its analysis", "paragraphs": [ "para_1789", "para_1790", "para_1791", "para_1792", "para_1793", "para_1794", "para_1795", "para_1796", "para_1797", "para_1798" ] }, { "title": "Specifically, the plaintiffs assert that, in cases involving", "paragraphs": [ "para_1800", "para_1801", "para_1802" ] }, { "title": "A brief discussion of Lewis is necessary, therefore, to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1804", "para_1805", "para_1806", "para_1807", "para_1808", "para_1809", "para_1810" ] }, { "title": "Id. The defendant sheriff attempted to stop and, although", "paragraphs": [ "para_1812", "para_1813", "para_1814", "para_1815", "para_1816", "para_1817", "para_1818" ] }, { "title": "The District Court granted summary judgment for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1820", "para_1821", "para_1822", "para_1823", "para_1824", "para_1825", "para_1826", "para_1827", "para_1828", "para_1829", "para_1830", "para_1831", "para_1832" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongpersonal security . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal", "paragraphs": [ "para_1834" ] }, { "title": "On appeal, the United States Supreme Court first", "paragraphs": [ "para_1836", "para_1837", "para_1838", "para_1839" ] }, { "title": "J., concurring) (“[i]n the case before us, there can be no", "paragraphs": [ "para_1841", "para_1842", "para_1843", "para_1844", "para_1845", "para_1846", "para_1847", "para_1848", "para_1849", "para_1850", "para_1851", "para_1852", "para_1853", "para_1854", "para_1855" ] }, { "title": "In turning to the second part of the substantive due", "paragraphs": [ "para_1857", "para_1858", "para_1859", "para_1860" ] }, { "title": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 847. The court", "paragraphs": [ "para_1862", "para_1863", "para_1864", "para_1865", "para_1866", "para_1867" ] }, { "title": "Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit recognized that con-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1869", "para_1870", "para_1871" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongothers. See id., 849–52. For example, the court com-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1873", "para_1874", "para_1875", "para_1876", "para_1877", "para_1878", "para_1879", "para_1880", "para_1881", "para_1882" ] }, { "title": "(2d Cir. 2011); Okin v. Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Police Dept., 577 F.3d 415, 431 (2d Cir. 2009); see gener-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1885" ] }, { "title": "(“[a]s the very term deliberate indifference implies, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1887", "para_1888" ] }, { "title": "Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court reversed", "paragraphs": [ "para_1890", "para_1891", "para_1892", "para_1893" ] }, { "title": "Returning to the case before us, we turn to the plain-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1895", "para_1896" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiffs further argue that the defendants lacked", "paragraphs": [ "para_1898", "para_1899", "para_1900", "para_1901", "para_1902", "para_1903" ] }, { "title": "The trial court properly determined that the plaintiffs’", "paragraphs": [ "para_1905", "para_1906", "para_1907", "para_1908", "para_1909", "para_1910" ] }, { "title": "2d 188 (2023); Hurd v. Fredenburgh, supra, 984 F.3d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tong1087; Sutton v. Stony Brook University, United States", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court of Appeals, Docket No. 21-2055 (2d Cir. Septem-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1914" ] }, { "title": "Appx. 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2011) (in absence of constitution-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1916", "para_1917", "para_1918", "para_1919" ] }, { "title": "D", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Count six of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint sets", "paragraphs": [ "para_1922", "para_1923", "para_1924", "para_1925", "para_1926", "para_1927", "para_1928", "para_1929", "para_1930", "para_1931", "para_1932", "para_1933" ] }, { "title": "In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged in a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1935", "para_1936", "para_1937", "para_1938", "para_1939", "para_1940", "para_1941", "para_1942", "para_1943", "para_1944", "para_1945" ] }, { "title": "In addressing the defendants’ qualified immunity", "paragraphs": [ "para_1947", "para_1948", "para_1949" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongof the plaintiffs’ personal information. The court inter-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1951", "para_1952", "para_1953", "para_1954", "para_1955", "para_1956", "para_1957", "para_1958", "para_1959", "para_1960", "para_1961", "para_1962", "para_1963", "para_1964", "para_1965", "para_1966", "para_1967" ] }, { "title": "On appeal, the plaintiffs reassert their contention", "paragraphs": [ "para_1969", "para_1970", "para_1971", "para_1972", "para_1973", "para_1974", "para_1975" ] }, { "title": "37In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs assert that at least two types", "paragraphs": [ "para_1977", "para_1978", "para_1979", "para_1980", "para_1981", "para_1982" ] }, { "title": "104 S. Ct. 548, 78 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1983). They further contend that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1984", "para_1985", "para_1986", "para_1987", "para_1988" ] }, { "title": "Birch Groves Assn., Inc. v. Jordon, supra, 233 Conn. App. 500–501", "paragraphs": [ "para_1990", "para_1991" ] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongof business matters and information amounted to a vio-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1993", "para_1994", "para_1995", "para_1996", "para_1997", "para_1998", "para_1999" ] }, { "title": "We iterate that public officials are not liable under", "paragraphs": [ "para_2001", "para_2002", "para_2003" ] }, { "title": "Culpin, Docket No. 99-7536, 2000 WL 232798, *1 (2d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cir. February 28, 2000) (decision without published", "paragraphs": [ "para_2006" ] }, { "title": "Marsh, 105 F.3d 106, 109 (2d Cir. 1997). The Second", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Circuit has held that an individual has a constitutional", "paragraphs": [ "para_2009" ] }, { "title": "New York, 15 F.3d 264, 267, 269 (2d Cir. 1994) (medical", "paragraphs": [ "para_2011", "para_2012", "para_2013", "para_2014", "para_2015", "para_2016" ] }, { "title": "Additionally, the Second Circuit has described the right", "paragraphs": [ "para_2018", "para_2019" ] }, { "title": "Taxi & Limousine Commission, 198 F.3d 317, 322 (2d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cir. 1999); see also Igneri v. Moore, 898 F.2d 870, 873", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2d Cir. 1990). “Second Circuit law currently recognizes", "paragraphs": [ "para_2023", "para_2024", "para_2025", "para_2026" ] }, { "title": "518, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); see also Matson v. Board of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Education, 631 F.3d 57, 66 (2d Cir. 2011) (constitutional", "paragraphs": [ "para_2029", "para_2030" ] }, { "title": "213 F. Supp. 3d 346, 359 (D. Conn. 2016) (constitutional", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mohammadi v. Tongright to privacy encompasses medical information that", "paragraphs": [ "para_2033", "para_2034", "para_2035", "para_2036" ] }, { "title": "2d 405 (1976) (no constitutional right to privacy that", "paragraphs": [ "para_2038", "para_2039" ] }, { "title": "(no constitutional right to privacy as to collection of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Social Security numbers); Pennyfeather v. Tessler, 431", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "F.3d 54, 55–56 (2d Cir. 2005) (right to privacy does not", "paragraphs": [ "para_2043", "para_2044", "para_2045" ] }, { "title": "268 (no constitutionally protected privacy interest in", "paragraphs": [ "para_2047" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence", "paragraphs": [ "para_2049", "para_2050", "para_2051", "para_2052" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2009) (courts are reluctant to", "paragraphs": [ "para_2054", "para_2055", "para_2056", "para_2057", "para_2058", "para_2059", "para_2060", "para_2061", "para_2062" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiffs have not done so regarding their claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_2064", "para_2065", "para_2066", "para_2067", "para_2068", "para_2069" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "************************************************", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "The “officially released” date that appears near the", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "motions and petitions for certification is the “officially", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "released” date appearing in the opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "All opinions are subject to modification and technical", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "of discrepancies between the advance release version of", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "to be considered authoritative.", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "or distributed without the express written permission of", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Branch, State of Connecticut.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "************************************************", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. TongABBAS MOHAMMADI ET AL. v. WILLIAM M.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "TONG ET AL.", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "(AC 47598)", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Seeley, Wilson and Harper, Js.", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Syllabus", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "The plaintiffs, a dentist and two associated entities, which had previously", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "entered into a settlement agreement with the state and federal governments", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "to resolve certain disputed billing irregularities, appealed from the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "court’s judgment dismissing certain of their claims against the defendants,", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "the state attorney general and a former commissioner of the Department", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "of Social Services. The plaintiffs claimed that the trial court improperly", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss their complaint, in which the", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that a press release the defendants issued to the", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "public announcing the settlement agreement contained false and inaccurate", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "information that damaged their reputations and professional standing in", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "violation of federal statutory (42 U.S.C. § 1983) law. Held:", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "This court concluded that the plaintiffs waived their claim that a motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "dismiss was not the proper procedural vehicle for the defendants to use in", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "asserting qualified immunity as a defense to the claims against them under", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the plaintiffs’ failure to object at trial to the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "use of the motion to dismiss allowed the trial court to properly consider the", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "motion on its merits.", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "The trial court properly concluded that qualified immunity required the", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim that they were deprived of procedural due", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "process under a stigma-plus theory, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "that the defendants were responsible for any state imposed burden on or", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "alteration of the plaintiffs’ status, and the plaintiffs’ claimed violation of", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "their fourteenth amendment right to liberty and property as a result of their", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "not having been afforded a hearing to contest the contents of the press release", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "was unavailing, as the plaintiffs were not subjected to any professional disci-", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "pline, which was a predicate requirement for entitlement to such a hearing.", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "The plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim that the defendants’ press", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "release contained false or misleading information that harmed their com-", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "mercial interests in violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (1)", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "(B)), as the plaintiffs failed to plead facts necessary to show that the press", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "release was a commercial advertisement or promotion intended to influence", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "consumers to buy goods or services provided by the defendants; accordingly,", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "the trial court properly determined that the defendants were entitled to quali-", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "fied immunity and the dismissal of that count of the plaintiffs’ complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "issuance of the press release constituted a deliberate violation of their rights", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "to be free from harm to their reputations, interference with their employ-", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "ment and the involuntary alteration of their status, as the plaintiffs failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongidentify the constitutionally protected liberty or property interest of which", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "they were deprived under the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "The plaintiffs’ claim that the disclosure of their business matters and infor-", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "mation in the defendants’ press release constituted an invasion of their con-", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "stitutional right to privacy was unavailing, as the plaintiffs failed to identify", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "the specific part of the press release that disclosed such information as well", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "as the existence of a clearly established constitutional right of privacy in", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "their business matters and information; accordingly, the trial court properly", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "dismissal of that count of the plaintiffs’ complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "Argued January 6—officially released September 29, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "Procedural History", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Action to recover damages for the defendants’ alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "violations of the plaintiffs’ state and federal constitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "tional rights, and for other relief, brought to the Supe-", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "rior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "the court, Vatti, J., granted the defendants’ motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "Thomas A. Amato, with whom was Linda T. Wihbey,", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "for the appellants (plaintiffs).", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "Benjamin Abrams, assistant attorney general, with", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "whom were Michael Rondon, assistant attorney general,", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "and, on the brief, William M. Tong, attorney general,", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "for the appellees (defendants).", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "Opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "HARPER, J. The plaintiffs, Abbas Mohammadi,", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "Columbia Dental, P.C. (Columbia Dental), and Colum-", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "bia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC (Columbia Oral),", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismiss-", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "ing their eight count amended complaint against the", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "defendants, William M. Tong and Deidre S. Gifford,", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "who are, respectively, the state attorney general and", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "the now former commissioner of the Department of", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "Social Services. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim (1) that", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "the defendants’ use of a motion to dismiss to raise their", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "claim of qualified immunity was improper and (2) that", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe court improperly dismissed their federal law claims", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "against the defendants in their individual capacities on", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "the basis of qualified immunity because none of those", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "claims plausibly demonstrated the violation of an estab-", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "lished constitutional or statutory right. We agree that, as", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "a general matter, a claim of qualified immunity does not", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "therefore is not properly raised via a motion to dismiss.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "Under the facts and circumstances of this case, however,", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs waived any claim as to the propriety of the", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "procedural vehicle used by the defendants to raise their", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "qualified immunity defense. We further conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "the court properly dismissed the federal law claims and,", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "The following facts, as alleged in the plaintiffs’ June", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "20, 2023 amended complaint and set forth in the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "court’s memorandum of decision, and procedural his-", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "tory, are relevant to the issues on appeal.1 Mohammadi,", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "1When reviewing a decision of the trial court to grant a motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "dismiss, our appellate courts take the facts to be those alleged in the", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "complaint and construe them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "See, e.g., Speer v. Skaats, 238 Conn. App. 736, 744, 357 A.3d 1120", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "(2026); Bouazza v. Geico General Ins. Co., 230 Conn. App. 297, 302,", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "330 A.3d 209 (2025). Accordingly, our recitation of the facts and pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "cedural history underlying the present appeal, therefore, comes from", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "the trial court’s summary of these events, as alleged in the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "amended complaint. In support of their respective positions concern-", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "ing the motion to dismiss, both parties filed supplemental memoranda", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "of law and exhibits. Although the defendants expressly requested that", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "the court take judicial notice of the “federal court filings and materials", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "incorporated by reference into the complaint,” the trial court expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "declined to consider certain documents attached to the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss. Specifically,", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "the court did not consider the docket sheet from the qui tam action", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "filed in federal court, the original and amended qui tam complaints", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "dated June 12 and August 13, 2015, respectively, the orders issued by", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "District of Connecticut with respect to the qui tam action, including", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "the unsealing of that matter and its restoration to the docket, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "federal court judgment resolving the qui tam action.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "Although the trial court did not consider the qui tam complaints and", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "the federal docket sheets, these materials are part of the record, and they", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "reflect that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint contains certain technical", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "inaccuracies with regard to the qui tam action. For example, it appears", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongan individual duly licensed by the Department of Public", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "Health to practice general dentistry in this state,2 was", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "the sole shareholder, director, and president of Columbia", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Dental. Columbia Dental, a business with the principal", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "purpose of providing dental services, had fifteen offices", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "located across the state. Columbia Oral served as the bill-", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "ing entity for the dental services provided by the other", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "two plaintiffs.", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "assistant.3 During her employment, Mahoney claimed to", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "that the qui tam complaint and amended complaint were not filed in", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "camera and under seal by the United States, as alleged in the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "amended complaint, but by the attorney representing Brittany Ames", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "Mahoney, a dental assistant employed by Columbia Dental, who claimed", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "to have discovered certain billing irregularities, after which the United", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "States filed the qui tam action under seal against all three plaintiffs.", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "See 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b) (1) and (2) (2012). In their memorandum of", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "law in support of their motion to dismiss, the defendants represented", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "that both the federal and state governments had “opened and jointly", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "conducted confidential False Claims Act investigations [and that dur-", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "ing] the next few years, the qui tam matter remained sealed while the", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "joint investigations progressed.” See 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b) (3) (2012)", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "(government, for good cause shown, may move court for extensions of", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "time during which complaint remains under seal). We emphasize that,", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "based on the other documents the parties submitted that the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "did consider, the court was not bound by the allegations contained in", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "the amended complaint; more importantly, these technical discrepan-", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "cies that originated in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint do not impact", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "or alter the resolution and analysis conducted by the trial court or", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "affect our consideration of the issues raised on appeal. In other words,", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs’ incorrect allegation that the government filed the qui", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "tam action was not determinative of the trial court’s conclusion that", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, nor is it determinative of our", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "resolution of this appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "2See, e.g., General Statutes §§ 20-106 and 20-107. Although § 20-107", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "has been amended since the events underlying this appeal; see Public", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "Acts 2019, No. 19-72, § 1; that amendment has no bearing on the merits", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "of this appeal. We therefore refer to the current revision of the statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "3General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 20-112a provides: “A licensed", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "dentist may delegate to dental assistants such dental procedures as", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "the dentist may deem advisable, including the taking of dental x-rays", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "if the dental assistant can demonstrate successful completion of the", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "dental radiography portion of an examination prescribed by the Den-", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "tal Assisting National Board, but such procedures shall be performed", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tonghave discovered certain billing irregularities, including,", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "claims submitted to the Department of Social Services", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries.4 With", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "the assistance of counsel, Mahoney filed a complaint and", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "an affidavit in the United States District Court for the", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "District of Connecticut5 regarding these irregularities", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "seq., and, based on this information, the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "(United States)6 filed a qui tam action under seal against", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "all three plaintiffs.7 The state of Connecticut (state)", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "under the dentist’s supervision and control and the dentist shall assume", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "responsibility for such procedures; provided such assistants may not", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "engage in: (1) Diagnosis for dental procedures or dental treatment; (2)", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "the cutting or removal of any hard or soft tissue or suturing; (3) the", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "prescribing of drugs or medications that require the written or oral", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "order of a licensed dentist or physician; (4) the administration of local,", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "parenteral, inhalation or general anesthetic agents in connection with", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "any dental operative procedure; (5) the taking of any impression of the", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "teeth or jaws or the relationship of the teeth or jaws for the purpose of", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "fabricating any appliance or prosthesis; (6) the placing, finishing and", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "adjustment of temporary or final restorations, capping materials and", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "cement bases; or (7) the practice of dental hygiene as defined in section", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "20-126l.”", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "4Briefly stated, “[t]he [M]edicaid program, established in 1965 as", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1396", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "et seq., provid[es] federal financial assistance to [s]tates that choose", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "to reimburse certain costs of medical treatment for needy persons.”", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ross v. Giardi, 237 Conn. 550, 555,", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "680 A.2d 113 (1996); see also Szewczyk v. Dept. of Social Services, 77", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "Conn. App. 38, 54 n.3, 822 A.2d 957 (2003) (Lavery, C. J., dissenting),", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "rev’d on other grounds, 275 Conn. 464, 881 A.2d 259 (2005).", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "5See United States ex rel. Mahoney v. Columbia Dental, P.C., United", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "States District Court, Docket No. 3:15-cv-918 (SRU) (D. Conn. Sep-", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "tember 23, 2020).", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "6As noted in the settlement agreement between the United States,", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "the state of Connecticut, Mahoney and the plaintiffs that resolved the", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "qui tam action, the United States was acting through the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "Department of Justice and on behalf of the Office of the Inspector Gen-", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "eral of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "7See United States ex rel. Henig v. Amazon.com, Inc., 177 F.4th 156,", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "159 n.4 (2d Cir. 2026) (United States is real party in interest in qui tam", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "action and is entitled to intervene and to take over prosecution); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b) (1) (“A person may bring a civil action for a violation", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government.", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "The action shall be brought in the name of the Government.”); 31 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongsubsequently was added as a coplaintiff in the qui tam", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "action. In an amended complaint dated July 13, 2015,", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "allegations of violations of the state False Claims Act,", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "General Statutes § 4-274 et seq., were added.", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "In the qui tam action,8 the complaint alleged that the", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "three plaintiffs “knowingly and willingly engaged in", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "the submission of false and fraudulent claims to the", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "[United States] and Connecticut for payment of govern-", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "ment funds that included inflated billings for dental and", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "related services that were never provided to any patient", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "or which were unnecessary.”9 Additionally, the state and", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "§ 3731 (c) (“[i]f the [g]overnment elects to intervene and proceed with", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "an action brought under [§] 3730 (b), the [g]overnment may file its own", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "complaint or amend the complaint of a person who has brought an action", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "under section 3730 (b) to clarify or add detail to the claims in which", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "the [g]overnment is intervening and to add any additional claims with", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "respect to which the [g]overnment contends it is entitled to relief”).", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "8“Qui tam is short for qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "hac parte sequitur, which means who pursues this action on our Lord", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "the King’s behalf as well as his own. . . . The False Claims Act’s qui", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "tam provision [31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b)] allows a private plaintiff, known", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "as a relator, [to bring] suit on behalf of the [g]overnment to recover a", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "remedy for a harm done to the [g]overnment. . . . As the real party in", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "interest in a qui tam action . . . the government may intervene and take", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "over prosecution of the lawsuit . . . . In such cases, however, the relator", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "is still entitled to a share of any recovery.” (Citations omitted; internal", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted.) United States v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 734", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "F.3d 154, 158 n.2 (2d Cir. 2013); see also United State ex rel. Pilon v.", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "Martin Marietta Corp., 60 F.3d 995, 997 n.2 (2d Cir. 1995) (qui tam", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "comes from Latin phrase meaning who brings action for king as well as", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "himself and allows informer to become private attorney general with", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "portion of recovery going to informer and remainder to state); McGovern", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "v. O’Connor, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No.", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "CV-07-5015198 (May 15, 2008) (qui tam actions augment law enforce-", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "ment by establishing dual enforcement scheme whereby both public", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "officials and private citizens are permitted to represent United States", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "in litigation to enforce statutory mandates, citing E. Caminker, “The", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "Constitutionality of Qui Tam Actions,” 99 Yale L.J. 341, 350 (1989),", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "and C. Broderick, “Qui Tam Provisions and the Public Interest: An", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "Empirical Analysis,” 107 Colum. L. Rev. 949, 953 (2007)).", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "9In the qui tam complaint, Mahoney alleged, inter alia, that Moham-", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "madi and Columbia Dental had submitted claims to the Medicaid program", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "for dental services and X-rays that were not provided, were not medi-", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "cally necessary, or were not provided by qualified individuals, as well as", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "claims of retaliation. The legislature has defined the class of persons who", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongfederal governments alleged that unlicensed individuals", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "performed X-rays. In September 2020, the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "District Court for the District of Connecticut unsealed", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "the qui tam complaint and Mahoney’s affidavit.", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "The United States, the state, Mahoney, and the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "tiffs subsequently entered into a settlement agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "to resolve the qui tam action. See United States ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "Mahoney v. Columbia Dental, P.C., United States Dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "trict Court, Docket No. 3:15-cv-918 (SRU) (D. Conn. Sep-", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "tember 23, 2020). The settlement agreement provided in", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "part that it was “made in compromise of disputed claims", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "and is neither an admission of liability by Mohammadi or", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "Columbia Dental, nor a concession by the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "or the state . . . that their claims are not well founded.”", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "As part of the settlement agreement, Mohammadi and", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "Columbia Dental agreed to pay $300,000 to the United", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "States and the state, secured by a stipulated judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "in the qui tam action. Additionally, the claims pleaded", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "under the federal False Claims Act and the state False", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "Claims Act action were dismissed with prejudice. Fur-", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "thermore, “[a]t no time did the state suspend or revoke", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "Mohammadi’s license to practice dentistry; nor did the", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "[Department of Social Services] suspend or revoke [his]", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "eligibility to continue to submit Medicaid dental claims;", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "nor was a hearing conducted regarding the subject mat-", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "ter of the settlement agreement.”", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "On July 30, 2020, Mohammadi learned that Tong", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "planned to use a press release to announce the settle-", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "ment agreement resolving the qui tam action. Moham-", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "madi unsuccessfully attempted to meet with Tong before", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "the press release was issued. Following the issuance of", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "the press release, the plaintiffs commenced the present", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "action in state court.", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "In its memorandum of decision, the trial court dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "cussed the allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint, stating", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "may take dental X-rays. See General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 20-112a", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "(licensed dentist may delegate taking of X-rays to dental assistant if", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "dental assistant can demonstrate successful completion of radiography", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "portion of examination prescribed by Dental Assisting National Board).", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthat the plaintiffs had alleged that, “[o]n October 1,", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "2020, the defendants, acting under color of state law,", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "intentionally, maliciously and needlessly published the", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "press release, posting the same on the Attorney General’s", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "website, and also issued a National Public Radio press", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "release . . . announcing the settlement to the public.”10", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "10The October 1, 2020 press release provides in relevant part: “Attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "General William Tong, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Department", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "of Social Services Commissioner Deidre S. Gifford today announced a", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "$300,000 joint state/federal False Claims Act settlement with Columbia", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "Dental, P.C., Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, L.L.C., and Abbas", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "Mohammadi, D.D.S. (collectively ‘Columbia Dental’), regarding over-", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "billing for dental services and the use of uncertified dental assistants.", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "“Columbia Dental, P.C. and Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging,", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "L.L.C. are owned by Abbas Mohammadi, D.D.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "“Following a qui tam complaint filed in federal court that alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "violations of both the Federal False Claims Act and the Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "False Claims Act, the Office of the Attorney General conducted a joint", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "investigation with the U.S. Health and Human Services Office of the", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "Inspector General/Office of Investigations and the Office of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "States Attorney. The investigation developed substantial evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "that Columbia Dental repeatedly overcharged the Connecticut Medical", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "Assistance Program (CMAP), which includes the Medicaid program,", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "for dental fillings that were either never performed or were medically", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "unnecessary.", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "“The investigation also uncovered substantial evidence of dental", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "[X]-rays being taken by dental assistants who were not certified by the", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "Dental Assisting National Board (DANB). Connecticut law requires", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "DANB certification of dental assistants before they are allowed to", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "take dental [X]-rays. The certification demonstrates that the dental", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "assistant successfully completed a course of instruction on the proto-", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "cols and operating procedures that must be followed to ensure the safe", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "administration of [X]-rays. From January 1, 2014 through November", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "30, 2015, Columbia Dental routinely caused claims for payment to be", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "submitted to the CMAP for [X]-rays taken by dental assistants who had", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "not obtained DANB certification.", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "“ ‘Columbia Dental repeatedly charged the state Medicaid program for", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "work that was never performed. Medicaid providers have an affirmative", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "obligation to ensure that services they bill for were actually performed.", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "Columbia Dental also routinely submitted claims for reimbursement", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "for [X]-rays taken by dental assistants without DANB certification.", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "The statutory requirement that dental assistants be DANB certified", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "before taking [X]-rays is meant to ensure [X]-rays are done safely, which", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "protects both the patient and the dental assistant. Medicaid providers", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "have a legal responsibility to ensure that they are in compliance with", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "all material laws and regulations when they submit claims for services", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "to the Medicaid program. The Office of the Attorney General takes", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. TongThe court further stated that the plaintiffs had alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "that the press release “was factually inaccurate in several", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "ways, including that it stated [that] an investigation was", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "conducted into the conduct of the plaintiffs, that it stated", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "[that] substantial evidence was uncovered that Columbia", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "Dental repeatedly overcharged the Connecticut Medical", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "Assistance Program, and that it implied that Columbia", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "Dental was responsible for the misconduct rather than", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "specifying [that] the conduct was limited to [a dentist", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "employed at Columbia Dental] and the nonboard certi-", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "fied dental technicians.” The plaintiffs also asserted that", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "Mohammadi had subsequently made efforts to address", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "the press release with Tong but that his requests were", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "ignored or declined.", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "The trial court further stated in its memorandum of", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "decision: “In sum, the plaintiffs claim that the defen-", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "dants’ press release was false, inaccurate, and unconsti-", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "tutional [and destroyed the[ir] honor and integrity . . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) The plaintiffs fur-", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "ther alleged that, as a result of the press release, they", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "were deprived of their liberty interest in maintaining", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "their good reputation, were forced to delete a social", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "media account, had insurers and financers terminate", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "and suspend the plaintiffs’ applications, and experienced", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "difficulties retaining and hiring new employees. The", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "plaintiffs also claimed that the press release effectively", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "constituted a breach of contract, and that the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "seriously our obligation to safeguard our public healthcare programs,", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "and we will take strong action against any provider who abuses the", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "public trust,’ said Attorney General Tong.", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "“ ‘The disturbing facts of this False Claims Act settlement case under-", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "score the need for all Medicaid-enrolled providers to scrupulously fulfill", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "their therapeutic and legal responsibilities to patients and the taxpaying", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "public. I join Attorney General Tong in commending his staff, state", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "and federal anti-fraud investigators, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "for their outstanding work in this matter,’ said Commissioner Deidre", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "S. Gifford of the Department of Social Services (DSS), administering", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "agency for Medicaid.", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "“Attorney General Tong thanked the U.S. Health and Human Services", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "Office of the Inspector General/Office of Investigations, the Office of", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "the United States Attorney, and the DSS Office of Quality Assurance", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "for their coordination in this case.”", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tonghad denied them a public hearing, or similar proceeding,", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "to contest the contents of the press release, both prior to", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "and after its release.", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "In their June 20, 2023 amended complaint, the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "tiffs alleged seven separate violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "and one violation of article first, § 10, of the Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "constitution as a result of the press release issued by the", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "defendants. Specifically, count one of the amended com-", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "plaint alleged a § 1983 claim based on a violation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "right to liberty and property; count two alleged a § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "claim based on false statements that violated § 1125 (a)", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; count three", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "alleged a § 1983 claim based on unfair or deceptive acts", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "or practices in or affecting commerce under §§ 45 (a) (1)", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "and 52 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "§ 41 et seq.; count four alleged a § 1983 claim based on", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "Act (CUTPA), § 42-110a et seq.; count five alleged a", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "§ 1983 claim of deliberate indifference and concomitant", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "abuse of power by the defendants as to the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "rights to be free from the deprivation of their liberty", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "and property interests and the involuntary alteration", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "of their status; count six alleged a § 1983 claim based on", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "violations of the plaintiffs’ rights to privacy; and count", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "seven alleged a § 1983 claim based on violations of the", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ rights under the equal protection clause of the", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "as a class of one. The plaintiffs directed the various causes", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "of action against Tong and Gifford in their official and", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "individual capacities and sought compensatory and puni-", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "tive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and injunctive relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "On August 21, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "all eight counts of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint pur-", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "suant to Practice Book § 10-30. The defendants argued", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "that the plaintiffs’ state law claim as alleged in count", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "eight of the amended complaint was barred by sovereign,", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "statutory and absolute immunity. As to the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "federal claims as set forth in counts one through seven", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "of the amended complaint, the defendants asserted that", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthose claims were barred for various reasons, including", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and the failure", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "to assert a constitutional violation. On September 19,", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "2023, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in support", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "of their objection to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "On April 18, 2024, the court, Vatti, J., issued a memo-", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "randum of decision granting the defendants’ motion", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "to dismiss the entirety of the plaintiffs’ amended com-", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "plaint.11 At the outset of its analysis, the court stated that", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "a claim regarding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "is raised properly via a motion to dismiss. Next, it con-", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "sidered the plaintiffs’ federal claims, each brought pur-", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "suant to § 1983 under a separate claimed constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "or statutory violation.12 The court further observed", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "that, in resolving issues of federal law, decisions from", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "federal courts, and in particular the United States Court", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "11The trial court did not consider the qui tam complaints or the docket", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "sheets from that action in ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss.", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "See footnote 1 of this opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "12Title 42 of the United States Code, § 1983, provides: “Every person", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "ceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "Our Supreme Court has explained that § “1983, aptly called the work-", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "horse of civil rights litigation . . . provides every person with a procedural", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "vehicle to obtain redress against state and municipal actors whose con-", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "duct has deprived that person of any rights, privileges, or immunities", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "secured by the [c]onstitution and laws of the United States . . . . Section", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "1983 claims often are filed in federal court, but state courts unquestion-", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "ably have concurrent jurisdiction over claims brought under § 1983.”", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mangiafico", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "v. Farmington, 331 Conn. 404, 419, 204 A.3d 1138 (2019); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "Jan G. v. Semple, 202 Conn. App. 202, 206 n.5, 244 A.3d 644 (§ 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "does not create substantive rights but, rather, provides procedure for", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "redress for deprivation of rights established elsewhere), cert. denied,", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongof Appeals for the Second Circuit, provide particular", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "guidance. Additionally, the court stated: “Under federal", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "law, in general, a state employee can be sued in his or", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "her official capacity for prospective injunctive relief if", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "there is an ongoing violation of federal law and can be", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "sued in his or her individual capacity for money damages", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "if the employee is personally involved in the wrongful", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "conduct alleged. However, a state official sued in his", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "or her official capacity may invoke the doctrine of sov-", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "ereign immunity, and a state official sued in his or her", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "individual capacity may invoke qualified immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "Here, the defendants argue that the federal law claims", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "asserted by the plaintiffs against the defendants in their", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "individual capacities, in counts one through seven, are", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "barred by qualified immunity, because none of the counts", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "plausibly demonstrate the violation of a constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "or statutory right. The defendants further argue that", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "count one against them in their official capacities, based", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "on the plaintiffs’ seeking of injunctive relief, is barred", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because there is", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "no violation of, nor ongoing violation of, federal law.”", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "The trial court proceeded to address each of the counts", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. As to count one,", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "the court determined that the plaintiffs’ claim against", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "the defendants in their official capacities was barred by", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity.13 It then concluded that qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "immunity applied to the remaining allegations that the", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "defendants, in their individual capacities, had deprived", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs of their constitutionally protected property", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "and liberty interests and altered their status by failing to", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "provide a hearing before or after the press release. As to", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "336 Conn. 937, 249 A.3d 38, cert. denied, 595 U.S. 952, 142 S. Ct. 205,", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "211 L. Ed. 2d 88 (2021).", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "To prevail on § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove that some person", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "has deprived him of a federal right and that the person who has deprived", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "him of that right acted under color of law. See Broadnax v. New Haven,", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "294 Conn. 280, 299, 984 A.2d 658 (2009); Taylor v. Lantz, 129 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "App. 437, 444, 20 A.3d 88 (2011).", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "13On appeal, the plaintiffs do not challenge the dismissal of their", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "claim against the defendants in their official capacities on the basis of", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity in their appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongcount one of the amended complaint alleging a violation", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "of procedural due process, the court specifically noted", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "that only Mohammadi, as an individual, could assert a", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "§ 1983 liberty interest claim and focused on his stigma-", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "plus14 basis for recovery for harm to his reputation. It", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "explained that the defendants’ motion focused on the", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "“plus” element and that this aspect of the claim must", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "come from state action, which may take the form of a", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "deprivation of property or a termination of government", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "employment. The court, citing Sadallah v. Utica, 383", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2004), observed that “deleterious effects", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "[flowing] directly from a sullied reputation, standing", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "alone, do not constitute a plus under the stigma-plus", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 38.", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "The court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "allege facts demonstrating that the defendants bore", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "responsibility for any burden on or alteration of their", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "status or rights due to the press release. The court ulti-", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "mately determined: “The state, through the actions of", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "the defendants, did nothing to impose any further burden", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "upon the plaintiffs, nor did they create an alteration", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "of the plaintiffs’ status which would satisfy the ‘plus’", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "requirement. Reactions from private third parties to the", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "claimed defamatory statement do not satisfy the ‘plus’", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "requirement.”", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "As to count two of the amended complaint, which", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "alleged a Lanham Act claim15 for false advertising under", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (1) (B),16 the trial court determined", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "14The stigma-plus “theory is limited by the well-established doctrine", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "that a state defamation action for slander by a government official,", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "alone, cannot be converted into a federal action for loss of liberty under", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "the [d]ue [p]rocess [c]lause of the [f]ourteenth [a]mendment. Instead,", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "to state a stigma-plus claim under the [c]onstitution, additional cir-", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "cumstances must be shown.” Patterson v. Utica, 370 F.3d 322, 328 (2d", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "Cir. 2004); see also Waronker v. Hempstead Union Free School District,", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "788 Fed. Appx. 788, 794 (2d Cir. 2019) (describing stigma-plus claim as", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "species within phylum of liberty based procedural due process claims),", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "cert. denied, 590 U.S. 904, 140 S. Ct. 2669, 206 L. Ed. 2d 823 (2020).", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "15See part II B of this opinion for the relevant statutory language of", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "the Lanham Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "16Title 15 of the United States Code, § 1125 (a) (1), provides in relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "part: “Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services,", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthat the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "press release constituted a commercial advertisement or", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "promotion. It further reasoned that this flaw was fatal", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "to the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim based on the Lanham Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "The trial court succinctly determined that counts", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "three and four of the amended complaint were barred", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "by qualified immunity. As to count three, which alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "a violation of the plaintiffs’ rights under 15 U.S.C. §§", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "45 (a) (1) and 52 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "the court determined that private parties lack standing", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "to sue under this statute. “Accordingly, as the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "are private parties, they do not have standing to bring a", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "claim under the [Federal Trade Commission Act], much", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "less a § 1983 claim predicated upon [a Federal Trade", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "Commission Act] violation.” Count four of the amended", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "complaint alleged a § 1983 claim based on CUTPA. Citing", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "the Second Circuit’s decision in Pollnow v. Glennon, 757", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "F.2d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1985), the trial court explained", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "that a violation of state law cannot form the basis for a", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "§ 1983 claim. Accordingly, the court concluded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "claims alleged in counts three and four were barred by", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "qualified immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "As to count five of the amended complaint, which", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "alleged a violation of § 1983 in that the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "issuance of the press release constituted a deliberate", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "violation of the plaintiffs’ rights to be free from the", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "deprivation of their liberty and property interests and", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "the involuntary alteration of their status, the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "observed that rights not explicitly mentioned in the fed-", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "eral constitution or deeply rooted in the history of the", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "United States and/or its traditions are not protected by", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "substantive due process. The plaintiffs failed to identify", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name,", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "representation of fact which . . . (B) in commercial advertising or promo-", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "tion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe liberty or property interests of which they allegedly", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "were deprived. Thus, the amended complaint failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "set forth the deprivation of a right that is deeply rooted", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "in the nation’s history or traditions “so as to warrant", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "substantive due process protection.” Additionally, the", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "court noted that, even if it were to consider the amended", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "complaint as asserting a substantive due process right", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "to be free from harm to reputation or free from interfer-", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "ence with employment, qualified immunity would still", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "defeat such claims. The court explained that reputation", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "alone is not a liberty or property interest that, by itself,", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "is sufficient to invoke the protection of the due process", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "clause. Additionally, federal law has held that, to state a", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "claim for the deprivation of a liberty interest, one must", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "have no ability to practice a profession. As the amended", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "complaint did not contain any allegations that the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "tiffs were prohibited from practicing or participating in", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "the business of dentistry, and any claim of lost profits", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "due to the press release would be insufficient, their claim", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "in count five of the amended complaint did not survive", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "the defendants’ motion to dismiss.", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "Count six of the amended complaint set out an alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "violation of the plaintiffs’ rights to privacy. The trial", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "court noted that the Second Circuit has recognized that", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "the constitutional right to privacy is very limited but", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "that it does encompass personal financial matters. The", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "trial court determined, however, that the amended com-", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "plaint failed to set forth the necessary information for", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "such a claim. Specifically, the court noted the absence", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "of an allegation as to the specific language in the press", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "release that amounted to a disclosure of the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "personal information, financial or otherwise. It further", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "interpreted the amended complaint as containing an alle-", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "gation of the disclosure of the plaintiffs’ business matters", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "or information, but such a disclosure does not amount to", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "a violation of the constitutional right to privacy. Addi-", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "tionally, the court noted that § 1983 does not apply to", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "a claim of the right to be free from unwanted publicity.", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "For these reasons, the court concluded that count six of", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe amended complaint was subject to dismissal on the", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "basis of qualified immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "Count seven of the amended complaint alleged a viola-", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "tion of the right to equal protection as a class of one.17", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "The plaintiffs contended that this count “properly alleges", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "a class of one violation of the equal protection clause", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "because it claims that the defendants treated the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "tiffs disparately and with a malicious intent relative to", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "[at least nine] other similarly situated . . . [health care", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "providers] about whom the defendants had also issued", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "press releases.” The trial court responded that “[t]he", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "plaintiffs have failed to specifically identify any similarly", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "situated parties in their amended complaint. . . . Under", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "the similarity requirement, it is not enough simply to", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "17“Although the prototypical equal protection claim involves discrimi-", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "nation against people based on their membership in a vulnerable class . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "the equal protection guarantee also extends to individuals who allege", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "no specific class membership but are nonetheless subjected to invidious", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "discrimination at the hands of government officials. . . . The [United", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "States] Supreme Court [has] affirmed the validity of such class of one", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "claims [when] the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "basis for the difference in treatment. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "“[T]he analytical predicate [of an equal protection claim] is a determi-", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "nation of who are the persons . . . similarly situated. . . . [T]he require-", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "ment imposed [on] [p]laintiffs claiming an equal protection violation", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "[is that they] identify and relate specific instances [in which] persons", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "situated similarly in all relevant aspects were treated differently. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "“Class of one plaintiffs, however, must show an extremely high", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "degree of similarity between themselves and the persons to whom they", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "compare themselves. . . . This is because the existence of persons in", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "similar circumstances who received more favorable treatment than", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "the plaintiff in a class-of-one case is offered to provide an inference", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "that the plaintiff was intentionally singled out for reasons that so lack", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "any reasonable nexus with a legitimate governmental policy that an", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "improper purpose—whether personal or otherwise—is all but certain. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "Accordingly, to succeed on a class-of-one claim, a plaintiff must estab-", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "lish that (i) no rational person could regard the circumstances of the", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "plaintiff to differ from those of a comparator to a degree that would", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "justify the differential treatment on the basis of a legitimate govern-", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "ment policy; and (ii) the similarity in circumstances and difference in", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "treatment are sufficient to exclude the possibility that the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "acted on the basis of a mistake.” (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted;", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "internal quotation marks omitted.) Brooks v. Sweeney, 299 Conn. 196,", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "218–20, 9 A.3d 347 (2010).", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongallege that these nine other parties were also health care", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "practitioners who were also subject to a settlement and", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "press release issued by the defendants because those facts", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "alone do not demonstrate that any of these parties are", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "highly similar to the plaintiffs, let alone so similar that no", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "rational person could see them as different . . . .” (Citation", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) As a result", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "of this pleading deficiency, the court concluded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "defendants were shielded by qualified immunity as to the", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "claim alleged in count seven of the amended complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "In count eight of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "alleged that the press release issued by the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "violated article first, § 10, of the Connecticut consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "tution.18 The defendants argued that such a claim was", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "barred by sovereign immunity, statutory immunity, or", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "absolute immunity. The trial court noted that, in Binette", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "v. Sabo, 244 Conn. 23, 30, 710 A.2d 688 (1998), our", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "Supreme Court explained that this constitutional provi-", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "sion protects access to our state courts but does not itself", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "create new substantive rights. It then explained that a", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "private cause of action under article first, § 10, has not", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "been recognized by Connecticut courts.19 For this reason,", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "it dismissed this count, sua sponte, for lack of subject", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "matter jurisdiction.20", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "In its conclusion, the trial court stated: “[C]ount one", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "is dismissed against the defendants in their official", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "18Article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution provides: “All", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.”", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "19In support of its dismissal of count eight of the amended complaint,", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "the trial court cited Kunda v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc., Superior Court,", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV-19-6051015-S (Decem-", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "ber 30, 2019); see also Shabazz v. Dzurenda, United States District", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "Court, Docket No. 3:16cv62 (MPS) (D. Conn. August 9, 2016); Sente-", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "mentes v. General Electric Co., United States District Court, Docket", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "No. 3:14-CV-00131-VLB (D. Conn. June 25, 2014).", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "20Nevertheless, the trial court continued its analysis and determined", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "that sovereign immunity did not bar count eight of the amended com-", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "plaint, but because the plaintiffs did not allege any fact that could allow", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "a reasonable person to infer that the defendants had acted with malice,", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongcapacit[ies] . . . pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "immunity. Counts one through seven against the defen-", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "dants in their individual capacities are dismissed on the", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "ground of qualified immunity. Count eight is dismissed", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "for the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as a", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "violation of [article first] § 10, of the Connecticut consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "tution is not a recognized private cause of action . . . . The", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "motion to dismiss is therefore granted in its entirety for", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” This appeal, which", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "challenges the dismissal of counts one, two, five and six", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "of the amended complaint, followed. Additional facts", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "will be set forth as necessary.", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "Before addressing the specific claims of the plaintiffs,", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "we first discuss the relevant legal principles regarding a", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "motion to dismiss. “We begin our discussion by setting", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "forth the well settled standard of review that governs", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "an appeal from a judgment granting a motion to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "on the ground of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "motion to dismiss properly attacks the jurisdiction of the", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "be heard by the court. . . . A court deciding a motion to dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "miss must determine not the merits of the claim or even", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "its legal sufficiency, but rather, whether the claim is one", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "that the court has jurisdiction to hear and decide . . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "(Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC, 236 Conn. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "708, 713–14, 349 A.3d 1105 (2025), cert. denied, 354", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "Conn. 909, 349 A.3d 1093 (2026); see also Manginelli", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "v. Regency House of Wallingford, Inc., 347 Conn. 581,", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "591, 298 A.3d 263 (2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "Additionally, we have stated that “[o]ur review of the", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [determi-", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "nation] of the motion to dismiss will be de novo. . . . In", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "undertaking this review, we are mindful of the well estab-", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "lished notion that, in determining whether a court has", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "the court concluded that count eight was subject to dismissal pursuant", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "to General Statutes § 4-165.", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongjurisdiction should be indulged.” (Internal quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "marks omitted.) Pickard v. Dept. of Mental Health &", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "Addiction Services, 210 Conn. App. 788, 793, 271 A.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "178 (2022); see also Cuozzo v. Orange, 315 Conn. 606,", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "614, 109 A.3d 903 (2015).", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "“When a trial court decides a jurisdictional question", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss on the basis of", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "the complaint alone, it must consider the allegations of", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "the complaint in their most favorable light. . . . In this", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "regard, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "from the allegations, construing them in a manner most", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "favorable to the pleader. . . . In contrast, if the complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "is supplemented by undisputed facts established by affi-", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "davits submitted in support of the motion to dismiss . .", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": ". other types of undisputed evidence . . . and/or public", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "records of which judicial notice may be taken . . . the", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "trial court, in determining the jurisdictional issue, may", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "consider these supplementary undisputed facts and need", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "not conclusively presume the validity of the allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "of the complaint. . . . Rather, those allegations are tem-", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "pered by the light shed on them by the [supplementary", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "undisputed facts]. . . . If affidavits and/or other evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "submitted in support of a defendant’s motion to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "conclusively establish that jurisdiction is lacking, and", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "the plaintiff fails to undermine this conclusion with", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "counteraffidavits . . . or other evidence, the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "may dismiss the action without further proceedings.”", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "(Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted;", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v. State, 292", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "Conn. 642, 651–52, 974 A.2d 669 (2009); see also Civic", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "Mind, LLC v. Hartford, 229 Conn. App. 615, 632–33,", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "328 A.3d 225 (2024), cert. denied, 351 Conn. 919, 333", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "A.3d 103 (2025). In the present case, the court considered", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs’ amended complaint along with additional", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "pleadings filed by the parties.", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "Next, we discuss briefly the principles relating to quali-", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "fied immunity. In Mulligan v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 716,", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "643 A.2d 1226 (1994), our Supreme Court explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tong“[t]he standard of qualified immunity that protects pub-", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "lic officials from civil suits pursuant to § 1983, arising", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "from the performance of their discretionary functions,", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "is distinct from that established under our common law.", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "Although [§ 1983] on its face admits of no immunities . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "the United States Supreme Court has held that the quali-", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "fied immunity defense protects government officials per-", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "forming discretionary functions from liability for civil", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "established statutory or constitutional rights of which a", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "reasonable person would have known. . . . For purposes of", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "a § 1983 claim, whether an official protected by qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "unlawful official action generally turns on the objective", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "legal reasonableness of the action . . . assessed in light of", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "was taken . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "marks omitted.) Id., 728–29; Traylor v. Gerratana, 148", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "Conn. App. 605, 612, 88 A.3d 552, cert. denied, 312", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "Conn. 902, 112 A.3d 778, and cert. denied, 312 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "901, 91 A.3d 908, cert. denied, 574 U.S. 978, 135 S. Ct.", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "444, 190 L. Ed. 2d 336 (2014); see also Schnabel v. Tyler,", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "230 Conn. 735, 744–47, 646 A.2d 152 (1994) (discuss-", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "ing historical roots and underlying purposes of doctrine", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "of federal qualified immunity from liability for § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "claims). With these principles in mind, we now turn to", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "the specific claims raised by the plaintiffs in this appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "I", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "The plaintiffs first claim that the defendants’ use", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "of a motion to dismiss to raise their claim of qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "immunity was improper. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "that qualified immunity, an affirmative defense, does", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "court and, therefore, is not raised properly via a motion", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "to dismiss.21 The defendants counter that the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "21At the outset, we note that, in regard to this issue, the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "merely assert that the trial court “erred in conflating the concepts of", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "qualified immunity and subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "should have denied the motion to dismiss, thereby compelling the", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "defendants to file their answer and any special defenses, one of which", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongfailed to challenge the use of the motion to dismiss before", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "the trial court and have raised this issue for the first time", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "on appeal. As a result, the defendants assert, this court", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "should not entertain the plaintiffs’ claim of an improper", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "use of a motion to dismiss. Additionally, the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "contend that the trial court properly considered and", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "applied qualified immunity by way of a motion to dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "miss in this case. Finally, the defendants maintain that", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "any procedural error was harmless, as the deficiencies", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint are “incurable.”", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "Although we agree with the plaintiffs that a motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "dismiss is not the proper procedural vehicle in which to", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "raise a qualified immunity defense in response to § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "claims, we conclude that the plaintiffs waived this claim", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "as a result of their failure to raise it before the trial court.", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "The record reveals the following procedural history.", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-30 (a),22 the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "amended complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity,", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "statutory immunity, qualified immunity, and absolute", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "immunity on August 21, 2023. In their accompanying", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "memorandum of law, the defendants argued that quali-", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "fied immunity barred the § 1983 claims against them in", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "their individual capacities “because none of the counts", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "plausibly demonstrate the violation of a constitutional or", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "statutory right” and that qualified immunity implicates", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction. On September 19, 2023, the", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "plaintiffs filed their objection to the defendants’ motion", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "to dismiss. Therein, the plaintiffs did not challenge the", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "defendants’ use of a motion to dismiss to advance the", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "defense of qualified immunity.23 In its memorandum", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "presumably would have raised the doctrine of qualified immunity.” The", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "plaintiffs have failed to expressly identify any prejudice as a result of", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "the defendants’ use of a motion to dismiss or to claim that the court", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "denied them the opportunity to replead their claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "22Practice Book § 10-30 (a) provides: “A motion to dismiss shall be", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "used to assert: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) lack", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "of jurisdiction over the person; (3) insufficiency of process; and (4)", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "insufficiency of service of process.”", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "23The trial court held a hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "on December 22, 2023. This court was not provided with a transcript", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "of that proceeding.", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongof decision, the trial court determined that qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction as a", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "prerequisite to dismissing the amended complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "In their principal brief to this court, the plaintiffs,", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "for the first time, argue that qualified immunity is an", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "affirmative defense and does not implicate the subject", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "matter jurisdiction of the trial court. The plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "further assert that, for this reason, the court improperly", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. As an initial", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "matter, we take the opportunity24 to discuss the holding", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "and iterate the comprehensive analysis and reasoning in", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "our recent decision in McKinnon v. Gardner, 238 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "App. 694, 357 A.3d 1105 (2026), in which this court", "paragraph_id": "para_918" }, { "text": "unequivocally concluded that “the qualified immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "defense to a § 1983 action does not implicate the subject", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "matter jurisdiction of the court. . . . For that reason, the", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "motion to dismiss is not the proper procedural vehicle", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "to raise the qualified immunity defense in our courts in", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "response to § 1983 claims.” (Citations omitted; footnote", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "omitted.) Id., 708–709.", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "In McKinnon v. Gardner, supra, 238 Conn. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "695, the incarcerated plaintiff filed an action against", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "six employees of the Department of Correction in their", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "individual and official capacities, alleging that they had", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "violated his due process rights and right to be free from", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "cruel and unusual punishment when moving him to a", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "new cell and that they deviated from department policy", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "by failing to place him in mental health housing. The", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "defendants successfully moved to dismiss the action for", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "process. Id., 697. On appeal, this court concluded that", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "the trial court had improperly determined that it lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "personal jurisdiction over the defendants. See id., 699.", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "We then considered the defendants’ alternative ground", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "24See generally Worth v. Commissioner of Transportation, 135 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "App. 506, 515 n.16, 43 A.3d 199 (“[w]e digress to bring to the atten-", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "tion of the bar and the trial court . . . that a motion to dismiss is not", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "the appropriate procedural means to challenge an action commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "pursuant to the accidental failure of suit statute,” General Statutes §", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "52-592), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 919, 47 A.3d 389 (2012).", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongfor affirmance—that the plaintiff’s claims were barred", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "by sovereign and qualified immunity, thereby depriving", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_948" }, { "text": "In addressing the defendants’ claim that qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "immunity implicated the trial court’s subject matter", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "jurisdiction, we commenced our analysis by noting that", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "the issue presented a question of federal law. See id.,", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": "702. Next, we observed that, “[u]nder federal law, quali-", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "fied immunity operates as a defense to a § 1983 claim.”", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "Id., 703. This court then noted that the defendants had", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "raised qualified immunity not as a special defense but,", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "rather, in a motion to dismiss, which is the appropri-", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "ate vehicle for challenging the jurisdiction of the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "court. See id., 704–705. We then emphasized that federal", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "courts “have universally rejected the proposition that", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "the doctrine of qualified immunity is subject matter", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "jurisdictional in nature. . . . As the United States Court", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit observed in the context", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "of a § 1983 claim, qualified immunity is an affirmative", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "defense which must be affirmatively pleaded; it is not a", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "doctrine of jurisdictional nature that deprives a court", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "of the power to adjudicate a claim. . . . Since [qualified]", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "immunity must be affirmatively pleaded, it follows that", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "the failure to do so can work a waiver of the defense.”", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "Id., 705; see also McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 435", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "(2d Cir. 2004). We then reasoned that, in contrast, both", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "federal and Connecticut law have recognized that subject", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "matter jurisdiction can never be waived. See McKinnon", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "v. Gardner, supra, 238 Conn. App. 708. “We, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "conclude[d] that the qualified immunity defense to a §", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "1983 action does not implicate the subject matter juris-", "paragraph_id": "para_977" }, { "text": "diction of the court. To hold otherwise would expand . .", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": ". the contours of the immunity available to government", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "officials under federal law . . . which this state court is not", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "permitted to do.” (Citation omitted; footnote omitted;", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 708–709. We", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "continued by stating, “[f]or that reason, the motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "dismiss is not the proper procedural vehicle to raise the", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "qualified immunity defense in our courts in response to", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tong§ 1983 claims.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 709. As a special", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "defense, a qualified immunity defense to § 1983 claims", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "made in Connecticut state courts should be raised in", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "either a motion to strike or a motion for summary judg-", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "ment.25 Id., 710. For these reasons, this court declined to", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "address the merits of the defendants’ alternative ground", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "for affirmance with respect to qualified immunity. See", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "id., 713; see also Belton v. Dragoi, 228 Conn. App. 510,", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "534 n.13, 325 A.3d 938 (2024) (defense of qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "immunity does not implicate subject matter jurisdic-", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "tion of trial court); see generally Maye v. New Haven,", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "89 F.4th 403, 407 (2d Cir. 2023) (qualified immunity is", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "affirmative defense that may be waived, unlike subject", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "matter jurisdiction); Mercer v. Schriro, 337 F. Supp.", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "3d 109, 124–25 (D. Conn. 2018) (qualified immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "is waivable affirmative defense that “has nothing to do", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "with” subject matter jurisdiction).", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "This court follows the principle of horizontal stare deci-", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "sis, that is, a commitment to follow our prior precedent.", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "See Gibbs v. Commissioner of Correction, 239 Conn. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "512, 531, 360 A.3d 1142 (2026), petition for cert. filed", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "(Conn. June 9, 2026) (No. 250467). Our recent decision", "paragraph_id": "para_1007" }, { "text": "in McKinnon v. Gardner, supra, 238 Conn. App. 694,", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "unequivocally established that qualified immunity in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "context of § 1983 claims does not implicate the court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction and is not properly raised in", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "a motion to dismiss.26 See id., 708–709. Furthermore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "as we recognized in McKinnon, to the extent any cases", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "from this court have suggested otherwise, such an inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "pretation would be contrary to binding precedent from", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "the United States Supreme Court. See id., 708 n.11.", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "We conclude, therefore, that a motion to dismiss is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "the proper procedural vehicle in which to raise qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "immunity in response to § 1983 claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "25See Practice Book § 10-39 (motion to strike); Practice Book § 17-44", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "(motion for summary judgment).", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "26The trial court did not have the benefit of our analysis, as our decision", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "in McKinnon v. Gardner, supra, 238 Conn. App. 694, was released on", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "April 28, 2026, approximately two years after the trial court’s decision", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "in the present matter.", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. TongThe defendants argue, inter alia, however, that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ failure to challenge the use of a motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "dismiss before the trial court renders it unreviewable on", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "appeal. Specifically, they cite to the often-stated prin-", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "ciples that this court will not review issues raised for the", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "first time on appeal or consider claimed errors by the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "court unless such matters distinctly were raised at trial", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "and decided by the trial court. See, e.g., Moris v. Invata", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "Holdings, Inc., 240 Conn. App. 212, 229, ___ A.3d ___", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "(2026); Birch Groves Assn., Inc. v. Jordon, 233 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "App. 488, 500 n.14, 341 A.3d 980 (2025); Westry v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "Litchfield Visitation Center, 216 Conn. App. 869, 878–", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "79, 287 A.3d 188 (2022). We agree with the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "that the plaintiffs failed to present their claim that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "use of a motion to dismiss was an improper procedural", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "vehicle. This court has recognized that “to permit a party", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "to raise a claim on appeal that has not been raised at", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "trial—after it is too late for the trial court . . . to address", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "the claim—would encourage trial by ambuscade, which", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "is unfair to both the trial court and the opposing party.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Cleaning &", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "Restoration, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 225 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "App. 702, 715, 317 A.3d 2 (2024).", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "Furthermore, our appellate courts have determined", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "that, when, as here, a party has failed to object to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "improper use of a motion to dismiss, a trial court may", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "properly consider the merits of that motion. See LaBow", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "v. LaBow, 85 Conn. App. 746, 750–52, 858 A.2d 882", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "(2004) (although use of motion to dismiss to challenge", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "applicability of accidental failure of suit statute, Gen-", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "eral Statutes § 52-592, was improper, plaintiff’s failure", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "to object in timely manner amounted to waiver of that", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "claim, and trial court properly considered motion to dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "miss in absence of objection), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906,", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "868 A.2d 747 (2005); Stevenson v. Peerless Industries,", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" }, { "text": "Inc., 72 Conn. App. 601, 606 n.6, 806 A.2d 567 (2002)", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "(same); Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238, 241", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "n.6, 789 A.2d 1142 (2002) (trial court properly decided", "paragraph_id": "para_1063" }, { "text": "motion to dismiss on merits when defendant failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "object to use of improper procedural vehicle in which to", "paragraph_id": "para_1065" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongraise claim that action was not saved by § 52-592); see", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "also Sullivan v. State, 189 Conn. 550, 552 n.4, 457 A.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_1067" }, { "text": "304 (1983) (“No objection has been raised to the proce-", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "dure of using a motion to dismiss rather than a motion", "paragraph_id": "para_1069" }, { "text": "for summary judgment to obtain a pretrial adjudication", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "of the merits of the special defense of immunity from", "paragraph_id": "para_1071" }, { "text": "liability by virtue of General Statutes § 4-165 raised", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "by the defendant. . . . We have decided to consider the", "paragraph_id": "para_1073" }, { "text": "issues as the parties have presented them to us on their", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "merits.” (Citation omitted.)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1075" }, { "text": "In light of the facts and circumstances of the present", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "case, namely, the plaintiffs’ failure to object and to raise", "paragraph_id": "para_1077" }, { "text": "this issue before the trial court, we conclude that they", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "have waived any claim as to the defendants’ improper", "paragraph_id": "para_1079" }, { "text": "use of a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, we emphasize", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "that qualified immunity does not implicate the court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1081" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction, and, therefore, a motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "dismiss is not the proper vehicle in which to raise this", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "special defense. See McKinnon v. Gardner, supra, 238", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "Conn. App. 702–11; see also Belton v. Dragoi, supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_1085" }, { "text": "228 Conn. App. 534 n.13.", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "II", "paragraph_id": "para_1087" }, { "text": "We now turn to the plaintiffs’ claim that the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "court improperly dismissed their federal § 1983 claims", "paragraph_id": "para_1089" }, { "text": "against the defendants in their individual capacities", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "on the basis of qualified immunity because none of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "claims plausibly demonstrated a violation of a consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_1092" }, { "text": "tutional or statutory right. Specifically, the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "argue that counts one (alleged violation of procedural", "paragraph_id": "para_1094" }, { "text": "due process), two (alleged violation of the right to be", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" }, { "text": "free from false statements under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)),", "paragraph_id": "para_1096" }, { "text": "five (alleged violation of substantive due process), and", "paragraph_id": "para_1097" }, { "text": "six (alleged violation of the right to privacy) of their", "paragraph_id": "para_1098" }, { "text": "amended complaint contained sufficient allegations of", "paragraph_id": "para_1099" }, { "text": "a violation of a clearly established statutory or consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_1100" }, { "text": "tutional right, and, therefore, the defendants were not", "paragraph_id": "para_1101" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongentitled to prevail on their qualified immunity defense.27", "paragraph_id": "para_1102" }, { "text": "We are not persuaded.", "paragraph_id": "para_1103" }, { "text": "We begin with our standard of review. “Whether an", "paragraph_id": "para_1104" }, { "text": "official is entitled to qualified immunity presents a ques-", "paragraph_id": "para_1105" }, { "text": "tion of law that must be resolved de novo on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_1106" }, { "text": "Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516, 114 S. Ct. 1019,", "paragraph_id": "para_1107" }, { "text": "127 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1994).” Fleming v. Bridgeport, 284", "paragraph_id": "para_1108" }, { "text": "Conn. 502, 518, 935 A.2d 126 (2007); Miller v. Doe, 214", "paragraph_id": "para_1109" }, { "text": "Conn. App. 35, 45, 279 A.3d 286 (2022); see also Horn", "paragraph_id": "para_1110" }, { "text": "v. Stephenson, 11 F.4th 163, 169 (2d Cir. 2021).", "paragraph_id": "para_1111" }, { "text": "Next, we identify the relevant legal principles regard-", "paragraph_id": "para_1112" }, { "text": "ing qualified immunity in the context of § 1983 claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_1113" }, { "text": "“[A] claim for qualified immunity from liability for dam-", "paragraph_id": "para_1114" }, { "text": "ages under § 1983 raises a question of federal law . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1115" }, { "text": "and not state law. Therefore, in reviewing these claims", "paragraph_id": "para_1116" }, { "text": "of qualified immunity we are bound by federal prec-", "paragraph_id": "para_1117" }, { "text": "edent and may not expand or contract the contours of", "paragraph_id": "para_1118" }, { "text": "the immunity available to government officials. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1119" }, { "text": "Furthermore, in applying federal law in those instances", "paragraph_id": "para_1120" }, { "text": "where the United States Supreme Court has not spoken,", "paragraph_id": "para_1121" }, { "text": "27The plaintiffs also claim that the trial court improperly construed", "paragraph_id": "para_1122" }, { "text": "terms of the settlement agreement that resolved the qui tam action.", "paragraph_id": "para_1123" }, { "text": "Specifically, they assert that § 31 of the settlement agreement “consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_1124" }, { "text": "tutes the foundation for several of the issues in this appeal because it", "paragraph_id": "para_1125" }, { "text": "prescribes the scope of the defendants’ ability to publicize the settlement", "paragraph_id": "para_1126" }, { "text": "agreement, and whether the plaintiffs consented to the issuance of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1127" }, { "text": "subject press release.” The defendants respond that this claim appears", "paragraph_id": "para_1128" }, { "text": "to assert that § 31 of the settlement agreement created a privacy right", "paragraph_id": "para_1129" }, { "text": "“to be free from officials disclosing information that went beyond the", "paragraph_id": "para_1130" }, { "text": "mere fact that there was a . . . settlement.” They further argue, inter", "paragraph_id": "para_1131" }, { "text": "alia, that the plaintiffs’ concession that § 31 was ambiguous and the", "paragraph_id": "para_1132" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ express consent to disclosure of the settlement agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_1133" }, { "text": "and information about it render this claim without merit. We agree", "paragraph_id": "para_1134" }, { "text": "with the defendants. Finally, to the extent the plaintiffs argue that", "paragraph_id": "para_1135" }, { "text": "§ 31 of the settlement agreement violates public policy, we similarly", "paragraph_id": "para_1136" }, { "text": "reject this claim as inadequately briefed. Although the plaintiffs cite", "paragraph_id": "para_1137" }, { "text": "to various federal and state statutes, they have failed to identify the", "paragraph_id": "para_1138" }, { "text": "specific public policy they claim the defendants violated by disclosing", "paragraph_id": "para_1139" }, { "text": "to the public the results of a joint investigation between the federal and", "paragraph_id": "para_1140" }, { "text": "state governments. See State v. Brozynski, 240 Conn. App. 567, 598,", "paragraph_id": "para_1141" }, { "text": "___ A.3d ___ (2026); State v. Alcenat, 240 Conn. App. 303, 327–28,", "paragraph_id": "para_1142" }, { "text": "___ A.3d ___ (2026).", "paragraph_id": "para_1143" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongwe generally give special consideration to decisions of", "paragraph_id": "para_1144" }, { "text": "the Second Circuit . . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1145" }, { "text": "“Qualified immunity balances two important inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_1146" }, { "text": "ests—the need to hold public officials accountable when", "paragraph_id": "para_1147" }, { "text": "they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield", "paragraph_id": "para_1148" }, { "text": "officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when", "paragraph_id": "para_1149" }, { "text": "they perform their duties reasonably. . . . [The] standard", "paragraph_id": "para_1150" }, { "text": "for determining whether an officer is entitled to quali-", "paragraph_id": "para_1151" }, { "text": "fied immunity . . . is forgiving and protects all but the", "paragraph_id": "para_1152" }, { "text": "plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the", "paragraph_id": "para_1153" }, { "text": "law. . . . Qualified immunity shields federal and state", "paragraph_id": "para_1154" }, { "text": "officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads", "paragraph_id": "para_1155" }, { "text": "facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or", "paragraph_id": "para_1156" }, { "text": "constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly", "paragraph_id": "para_1157" }, { "text": "established at the time of the challenged conduct. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1158" }, { "text": "Courts are permitted to exercise their sound discretion", "paragraph_id": "para_1159" }, { "text": "in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_1160" }, { "text": "immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of", "paragraph_id": "para_1161" }, { "text": "the circumstances in the particular case at hand. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1162" }, { "text": "“To determine whether a right is clearly established,", "paragraph_id": "para_1163" }, { "text": "we look to (1) whether the right was defined with reason-", "paragraph_id": "para_1164" }, { "text": "able specificity; (2) whether Supreme Court or court of", "paragraph_id": "para_1165" }, { "text": "appeals case law supports the existence of the right in", "paragraph_id": "para_1166" }, { "text": "question, and (3) whether under preexisting law a rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_1167" }, { "text": "sonable defendant would have understood that his or her", "paragraph_id": "para_1168" }, { "text": "acts were unlawful. . . . Even if [the Second Circuit] or", "paragraph_id": "para_1169" }, { "text": "other circuit courts have not explicitly held a . . . course of", "paragraph_id": "para_1170" }, { "text": "conduct to be unconstitutional, the unconstitutionality", "paragraph_id": "para_1171" }, { "text": "of that . . . course of conduct will nonetheless be treated", "paragraph_id": "para_1172" }, { "text": "as clearly established if decisions by this or other courts", "paragraph_id": "para_1173" }, { "text": "clearly foreshadow a particular ruling on the issue . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1174" }, { "text": "even if those decisions come from courts in other circuits", "paragraph_id": "para_1175" }, { "text": ". . . . Courts do not require a case directly on point, but", "paragraph_id": "para_1176" }, { "text": "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or", "paragraph_id": "para_1177" }, { "text": "constitutional question beyond debate. . . . Moreover,", "paragraph_id": "para_1178" }, { "text": "[t]he right the official is alleged to have violated must", "paragraph_id": "para_1179" }, { "text": "have been clearly established in a more particularized,", "paragraph_id": "para_1180" }, { "text": "and hence more relevant, sense. . . . If an official’s con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1181" }, { "text": "duct did not violate a clearly established constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_1182" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongright . . . then he is protected by qualified immunity.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1183" }, { "text": "(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1184" }, { "text": "Miller v. Doe, supra, 214 Conn. App. 45–47; see also", "paragraph_id": "para_1185" }, { "text": "Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 519–20, 729 A.2d 740,", "paragraph_id": "para_1186" }, { "text": "cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929, 120 S. Ct. 326, 145 L. Ed.", "paragraph_id": "para_1187" }, { "text": "2d 254 (1999); Morgan v. Bubar, 115 Conn. App. 603,", "paragraph_id": "para_1188" }, { "text": "625–26, 975 A.2d 59 (2009); Horn v. Stephenson, supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_1189" }, { "text": "11 F.4th 168–69; see generally Braham v. Newbould,", "paragraph_id": "para_1190" }, { "text": "160 Conn. App. 294, 301, 124 A.3d 977 (2015) (United", "paragraph_id": "para_1191" }, { "text": "States Supreme Court has recognized qualified immu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1192" }, { "text": "nity for government officials when necessary to preserve", "paragraph_id": "para_1193" }, { "text": "ability to serve public good or to ensure that talented", "paragraph_id": "para_1194" }, { "text": "candidates are not deterred by threat of damages suits", "paragraph_id": "para_1195" }, { "text": "from entering public service). With these principles in", "paragraph_id": "para_1196" }, { "text": "mind, we consider counts one, two, five and six of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1197" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ amended complaint in turn to determine if", "paragraph_id": "para_1198" }, { "text": "they contain allegations sufficient to overcome claimed", "paragraph_id": "para_1199" }, { "text": "qualified immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_1200" }, { "text": "A", "paragraph_id": "para_1201" }, { "text": "Count one of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint sets", "paragraph_id": "para_1202" }, { "text": "forth a § 1983 claim based on an alleged violation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1203" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ right to procedural due process. Specifically,", "paragraph_id": "para_1204" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs contend that the amended complaint suf-", "paragraph_id": "para_1205" }, { "text": "ficiently alleged a deprivation of a liberty or property", "paragraph_id": "para_1206" }, { "text": "interest by way of a “stigma-plus” claim and, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1207" }, { "text": "that the trial court improperly dismissed count one. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1208" }, { "text": "defendants counter that the allegations in the amended", "paragraph_id": "para_1209" }, { "text": "complaint failed to set forth a state imposed burden on", "paragraph_id": "para_1210" }, { "text": "or state imposed alteration of the plaintiffs’ status, as", "paragraph_id": "para_1211" }, { "text": "required for such a claim, and, therefore, the court prop-", "paragraph_id": "para_1212" }, { "text": "erly dismissed this count. We agree with the defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_1213" }, { "text": "In count one of their amended complaint, the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_1214" }, { "text": "tiffs alleged that, as a direct and proximate result of", "paragraph_id": "para_1215" }, { "text": "the false and defamatory statements contained in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1216" }, { "text": "press release, they suffered “significant and widespread", "paragraph_id": "para_1217" }, { "text": "social obloquy” in several ways. Specifically, the amended", "paragraph_id": "para_1218" }, { "text": "complaint stated: “The plaintiff Mohammadi, his wife", "paragraph_id": "para_1219" }, { "text": "and son, and numerous employees of Columbia Dental,", "paragraph_id": "para_1220" }, { "text": "observed on the Facebook and YouTube social media sites", "paragraph_id": "para_1221" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tonga plethora of disparaging and xenophobic commentary,", "paragraph_id": "para_1222" }, { "text": "reacting and responding to the press release, condemn-", "paragraph_id": "para_1223" }, { "text": "ing Mohammadi for what commentors opined were acts", "paragraph_id": "para_1224" }, { "text": "of avarice perpetrated by a person of Middle Eastern", "paragraph_id": "para_1225" }, { "text": "national origin, which commentary resulted in an altera-", "paragraph_id": "para_1226" }, { "text": "tion of . . . Mohammadi’s status . . . . [Further, prior] to", "paragraph_id": "para_1227" }, { "text": "October 1, 2020, Columbia Dental had approximately", "paragraph_id": "para_1228" }, { "text": "ten thousand Facebook followers. Subsequent to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1229" }, { "text": "defendant Tong’s issuance of the press release and con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1230" }, { "text": "comitant radio announcement, Columbia Dental received", "paragraph_id": "para_1231" }, { "text": "so many negative comments related to such press release", "paragraph_id": "para_1232" }, { "text": "that it felt compelled to terminate its Facebook account,", "paragraph_id": "para_1233" }, { "text": "resulting in an alteration of its status.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1234" }, { "text": "The amended complaint further alleged that, as a direct", "paragraph_id": "para_1235" }, { "text": "result of the press release, three private dental insurers", "paragraph_id": "para_1236" }, { "text": "unilaterally terminated their existing contracts with", "paragraph_id": "para_1237" }, { "text": "Mohammadi. As a result, the plaintiffs suffered “a sig-", "paragraph_id": "para_1238" }, { "text": "nificant diminution of gross revenues” and, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1239" }, { "text": "a deprivation of their property and liberty interests and", "paragraph_id": "para_1240" }, { "text": "an alteration of their status. Additionally, the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_1241" }, { "text": "alleged that two companies that had offered financing to", "paragraph_id": "para_1242" }, { "text": "dental patients also ended their business relationships", "paragraph_id": "para_1243" }, { "text": "with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1244" }, { "text": "issuance of the press release deprived them of liberty", "paragraph_id": "para_1245" }, { "text": "and property by destroying their honor and integrity,", "paragraph_id": "para_1246" }, { "text": "by depriving them of autonomous self-invention, by", "paragraph_id": "para_1247" }, { "text": "breaching their contract with the state, and by casting", "paragraph_id": "para_1248" }, { "text": "them in a false light. The plaintiffs further claimed that,", "paragraph_id": "para_1249" }, { "text": "due to the press release, two health care provider employ-", "paragraph_id": "para_1250" }, { "text": "ees resigned, and the plaintiffs experienced difficulty", "paragraph_id": "para_1251" }, { "text": "recruiting such providers, resulting in a deprivation of", "paragraph_id": "para_1252" }, { "text": "property and alteration of status.", "paragraph_id": "para_1253" }, { "text": "The amended complaint also alleged that the defen-", "paragraph_id": "para_1254" }, { "text": "dants had violated the plaintiffs’ fourteenth amend-", "paragraph_id": "para_1255" }, { "text": "ment rights to liberty and property as a result of Tong’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1256" }, { "text": "denials of (1) their request for a public hearing or similar", "paragraph_id": "para_1257" }, { "text": "proceeding before or after the October 1, 2020 issu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1258" }, { "text": "ance of the press release that would have afforded the", "paragraph_id": "para_1259" }, { "text": "plaintiffs the opportunity to contest the allegations and", "paragraph_id": "para_1260" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongstatements contained therein, and (2) the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_1261" }, { "text": "denial of Mohammadi’s right to a hearing pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_1262" }, { "text": "General Statutes § 20-103a (b).28", "paragraph_id": "para_1263" }, { "text": "In addressing count one of the amended complaint, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1264" }, { "text": "trial court interpreted it as applying to all of the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_1265" }, { "text": "tiffs despite the caption indicating that it was applicable", "paragraph_id": "para_1266" }, { "text": "only to Mohammadi. As to the stigma-plus claim, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1267" }, { "text": "court began its analysis by noting that procedural due", "paragraph_id": "para_1268" }, { "text": "process protection applied to reputational harm only if", "paragraph_id": "para_1269" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs demonstrated a stigma from government", "paragraph_id": "para_1270" }, { "text": "action, plus the alteration or extinguishment of a right", "paragraph_id": "para_1271" }, { "text": "or status previously recognized by state law. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_1272" }, { "text": "28General Statutes § 20-103a provides: “(a) The State Dental Commis-", "paragraph_id": "para_1273" }, { "text": "sion shall consist of nine members appointed by the Governor, subject", "paragraph_id": "para_1274" }, { "text": "to the provisions of section 4-9a, six of whom shall be practitioners in", "paragraph_id": "para_1275" }, { "text": "dentistry residing in this state who are in good standing in their pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_1276" }, { "text": "fession and three of whom shall be public members. No member of said", "paragraph_id": "para_1277" }, { "text": "commission shall be an elected or appointed officer of a professional", "paragraph_id": "para_1278" }, { "text": "association of members of his profession or have been such an officer", "paragraph_id": "para_1279" }, { "text": "for the year immediately preceding his appointment. The Commis-", "paragraph_id": "para_1280" }, { "text": "sioner of Public Health, with advice and assistance from the Dental", "paragraph_id": "para_1281" }, { "text": "Commission, may issue regulations to implement the provisions of", "paragraph_id": "para_1282" }, { "text": "this chapter, and to insure proper dental care and the protection of", "paragraph_id": "para_1283" }, { "text": "public health, considering the convenience and welfare of the patient,", "paragraph_id": "para_1284" }, { "text": "methods recommended by the canon of ethics of the Connecticut State", "paragraph_id": "para_1285" }, { "text": "Dental Association and the American Dental Association and accepted", "paragraph_id": "para_1286" }, { "text": "health standards as promulgated by local health ordinances and state", "paragraph_id": "para_1287" }, { "text": "statutes and regulations.", "paragraph_id": "para_1288" }, { "text": "“(b) The Governor shall appoint a chairperson from among such mem-", "paragraph_id": "para_1289" }, { "text": "bers. Said commission shall meet at least once during each calendar", "paragraph_id": "para_1290" }, { "text": "quarter and at such other times as the chairman deems necessary. Spe-", "paragraph_id": "para_1291" }, { "text": "cial meetings shall be held on the request of a majority of the commis-", "paragraph_id": "para_1292" }, { "text": "sion after notice in accordance with the provisions of section 1-225. A", "paragraph_id": "para_1293" }, { "text": "majority of the members of the commission shall constitute a quorum.", "paragraph_id": "para_1294" }, { "text": "Members shall not be compensated for their services. Any member who", "paragraph_id": "para_1295" }, { "text": "fails to attend three consecutive meetings or who fails to attend fifty", "paragraph_id": "para_1296" }, { "text": "per cent of all meetings held during any calendar year shall be deemed", "paragraph_id": "para_1297" }, { "text": "to have resigned from office. Minutes of all meetings shall be recorded", "paragraph_id": "para_1298" }, { "text": "by the commission. No member shall participate in the affairs of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1299" }, { "text": "commission during the pendency of any disciplinary proceedings by", "paragraph_id": "para_1300" }, { "text": "the commission against such member. No member shall serve for more", "paragraph_id": "para_1301" }, { "text": "than two full consecutive terms commencing after July 1, 1980. Said", "paragraph_id": "para_1302" }, { "text": "commission shall (1) hear and decide matters concerning suspension or", "paragraph_id": "para_1303" }, { "text": "revocation of licensure, (2) adjudicate complaints filed against practi-", "paragraph_id": "para_1304" }, { "text": "tioners and (3) impose sanctions where appropriate.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1305" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongnoted that, to prevail under the stigma-plus doctrine,", "paragraph_id": "para_1306" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs needed to allege and demonstrate that both", "paragraph_id": "para_1307" }, { "text": "aspects, the stigma and the “plus,” were the result of", "paragraph_id": "para_1308" }, { "text": "state action. After explaining that the defendants were", "paragraph_id": "para_1309" }, { "text": "challenging the “plus” aspect of the doctrine, the court", "paragraph_id": "para_1310" }, { "text": "determined that the plaintiffs had failed to allege any", "paragraph_id": "para_1311" }, { "text": "facts demonstrating that the defendants were respon-", "paragraph_id": "para_1312" }, { "text": "sible for any state imposed burden on or alteration of", "paragraph_id": "para_1313" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs’ status as a result of the press release. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1314" }, { "text": "court stated: “The harm alleged (damage to reputation,", "paragraph_id": "para_1315" }, { "text": "lost business and profits, mental and emotional distress)", "paragraph_id": "para_1316" }, { "text": "all flow from the allegedly defamatory comments. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1317" }, { "text": "state, through the actions of the defendants, did nothing", "paragraph_id": "para_1318" }, { "text": "to impose any further burden upon the plaintiffs nor did", "paragraph_id": "para_1319" }, { "text": "they create an alteration of the plaintiffs’ status that", "paragraph_id": "para_1320" }, { "text": "would satisfy the ‘plus’ requirement.” Specifically, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1321" }, { "text": "court stated that reactions from third parties as a result", "paragraph_id": "para_1322" }, { "text": "of the press release did not satisfy the “plus” aspect of", "paragraph_id": "para_1323" }, { "text": "the test. The court concluded by stating: “Interpreted", "paragraph_id": "para_1324" }, { "text": "in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, count one", "paragraph_id": "para_1325" }, { "text": "alleges, at best, that the harms caused by the press release", "paragraph_id": "para_1326" }, { "text": "were to the reputation of the plaintiffs, which does not", "paragraph_id": "para_1327" }, { "text": "constitute deprivation of a cognizable liberty interest", "paragraph_id": "para_1328" }, { "text": "that gives rise to a stigma-plus claim.” Finally, as to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1329" }, { "text": "claim of a deprivation of the opportunity for a hearing", "paragraph_id": "para_1330" }, { "text": "with regard to the press release, the court determined", "paragraph_id": "para_1331" }, { "text": "that no such right existed under § 20-103a (b) or Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1332" }, { "text": "necticut case law.29", "paragraph_id": "para_1333" }, { "text": "The Second Circuit has recognized that defamation", "paragraph_id": "para_1334" }, { "text": "alone does not constitute a deprivation of a liberty or", "paragraph_id": "para_1335" }, { "text": "property interest protected by due process. Sadallah", "paragraph_id": "para_1336" }, { "text": "v. Utica, supra, 383 F.3d 38; see also Cutie v. Sheehan,", "paragraph_id": "para_1337" }, { "text": "645 Fed. Appx. 93, 95 (2d Cir. 2016). The stigma-plus", "paragraph_id": "para_1338" }, { "text": "29The trial court observed that § 20-103a (b) “only establishes duties", "paragraph_id": "para_1339" }, { "text": "and procedural requirements relating to the makeup of the State Dental", "paragraph_id": "para_1340" }, { "text": "Commission. . . . Given the lack of any express language in the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_1341" }, { "text": "establishing such a right, or any existing precedent . . . the court finds", "paragraph_id": "para_1342" }, { "text": "[that] no clearly established statutory right to a hearing before the", "paragraph_id": "para_1343" }, { "text": "State Dental Commission for a dentist accused of Medicaid billing fraud", "paragraph_id": "para_1344" }, { "text": "existed at the time of the alleged conduct.” (Citation omitted; internal", "paragraph_id": "para_1345" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1346" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongdoctrine, however, affords a party, in limited circum-", "paragraph_id": "para_1347" }, { "text": "stances, the opportunity to obtain a remedy for govern-", "paragraph_id": "para_1348" }, { "text": "ment defamation under constitutional law. Sadallah v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1349" }, { "text": "Utica, supra, 38; see also Mudge v. Zugalla, 939 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_1350" }, { "text": "72, 80 (2d Cir. 2019); DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292,", "paragraph_id": "para_1351" }, { "text": "302 (2d Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988, 124 S. Ct.", "paragraph_id": "para_1352" }, { "text": "2018, 158 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2004).", "paragraph_id": "para_1353" }, { "text": "“To establish a stigma-plus claim, a plaintiff must show", "paragraph_id": "para_1354" }, { "text": "(1) the utterance of a statement sufficiently derogatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1355" }, { "text": "to injure his or her reputation, that is capable of being", "paragraph_id": "para_1356" }, { "text": "proved false, and that he or she claims is false, and (2) a", "paragraph_id": "para_1357" }, { "text": "material state imposed burden or state imposed alteration", "paragraph_id": "para_1358" }, { "text": "of the plaintiff’s status or rights. . . . This state-imposed", "paragraph_id": "para_1359" }, { "text": "alteration of status or burden must be in addition to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1360" }, { "text": "stigmatizing statement. . . . Thus, even where a plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_1361" }, { "text": "tiff’s allegations would be sufficient to demonstrate a", "paragraph_id": "para_1362" }, { "text": "government-imposed stigma, such defamation is not,", "paragraph_id": "para_1363" }, { "text": "absent more, a deprivation of a liberty or property inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_1364" }, { "text": "est protected by due process.” (Citations omitted; internal", "paragraph_id": "para_1365" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted.) Vega v. Lantz, 596 F.3d 77,", "paragraph_id": "para_1366" }, { "text": "81 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Priore v. Haig, 344 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1367" }, { "text": "636, 668, 280 A.3d 402 (2022) (D’Auria, J., concurring", "paragraph_id": "para_1368" }, { "text": "in part and concurring in the judgment) (stigma-plus", "paragraph_id": "para_1369" }, { "text": "claim involves injury to reputation (stigma) coupled", "paragraph_id": "para_1370" }, { "text": "with deprivation of some tangible interests or property", "paragraph_id": "para_1371" }, { "text": "right (plus) without due process).", "paragraph_id": "para_1372" }, { "text": "On appeal, the plaintiffs present several arguments", "paragraph_id": "para_1373" }, { "text": "as to why the trial court’s dismissal of count one of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1374" }, { "text": "amended complaint on the basis of qualified immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_1375" }, { "text": "was improper. First, citing to a trial court decision from", "paragraph_id": "para_1376" }, { "text": "the state of New York and a decision from the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1377" }, { "text": "States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,30 the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_1378" }, { "text": "tiffs contend that their “allegation of the humiliation", "paragraph_id": "para_1379" }, { "text": "generated by the subject press release is alone sufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_1380" }, { "text": "to constitute the plus element.” We disagree. The Second", "paragraph_id": "para_1381" }, { "text": "Circuit has unequivocally stated that the second prong of", "paragraph_id": "para_1382" }, { "text": "30See Bursac v. Suozzi, 22 Misc. 3d 328, 342, 868 N.Y.S.2d 470", "paragraph_id": "para_1383" }, { "text": "(2008); Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1032–33 (9th Cir. 2004),", "paragraph_id": "para_1384" }, { "text": "cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1039, 125 S. Ct. 2961, 162 L. Ed. 2d 887 (2005).", "paragraph_id": "para_1385" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe stigma-plus test requires a state imposed burden on or", "paragraph_id": "para_1386" }, { "text": "alteration of a plaintiff’s status, such as a deprivation of", "paragraph_id": "para_1387" }, { "text": "property or termination of government employment. See", "paragraph_id": "para_1388" }, { "text": "Waronker Hempstead Union Free School District, 788", "paragraph_id": "para_1389" }, { "text": "Fed. Appx. 788, 794 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 590 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1390" }, { "text": "904, 140 S. Ct. 2669, 206 L. Ed. 2d 823 (2020); Cutie v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1391" }, { "text": "Sheehan, supra, 645 Fed. Appx. 96; Sadallah v. Utica,", "paragraph_id": "para_1392" }, { "text": "supra, 383 F.3d 38; DiBlasio v. Novello, supra, 344 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_1393" }, { "text": "302; see, e.g., Randolph v. Tung, United States District", "paragraph_id": "para_1394" }, { "text": "Court, Docket No. 3:24-cv-1645-OAW (D. Conn. June", "paragraph_id": "para_1395" }, { "text": "29, 2026) (allegations of deleterious effects of allegedly", "paragraph_id": "para_1396" }, { "text": "defamatory statements by governmental actor were not", "paragraph_id": "para_1397" }, { "text": "state imposed burdens or alterations of the plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1398" }, { "text": "rights and thus were insufficient to establish § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_1399" }, { "text": "stigma-plus claim); Filteau v. Prudenti, 161 F. Supp. 3d", "paragraph_id": "para_1400" }, { "text": "284, 291, 294–97 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (allegations of dimin-", "paragraph_id": "para_1401" }, { "text": "ished job prospects and difficulty obtaining or retaining", "paragraph_id": "para_1402" }, { "text": "professional licenses did not satisfy “plus” element of", "paragraph_id": "para_1403" }, { "text": "§ 1983 stigma-plus claim).; see also Franco-Lopez v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1404" }, { "text": "Molina, 826 F. Supp. 3d 416, 435–37 (E.D.N.Y. 2026)", "paragraph_id": "para_1405" }, { "text": "(although plaintiff sufficiently alleged state imposed", "paragraph_id": "para_1406" }, { "text": "burdens on his liberty interest in practicing law, § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_1407" }, { "text": "stigma-plus claim was dismissed for failure to allege", "paragraph_id": "para_1408" }, { "text": "denial of due process right to be heard at meaningful time", "paragraph_id": "para_1409" }, { "text": "or in meaningful manner). Simply stated, “[t]he stigma-", "paragraph_id": "para_1410" }, { "text": "plus test requires that the defamation be accompanied", "paragraph_id": "para_1411" }, { "text": "by an injury directly caused by the [g]overnment, rather", "paragraph_id": "para_1412" }, { "text": "than an injury caused by the act of some third party. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1413" }, { "text": "State action must accompany both prongs of the stigma-", "paragraph_id": "para_1414" }, { "text": "plus test.” (Citation omitted; emphasis altered; internal", "paragraph_id": "para_1415" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted.) Izzo v. Syracuse, United", "paragraph_id": "para_1416" }, { "text": "States District Court, Docket No. 98-CV-0778 FJS GLS", "paragraph_id": "para_1417" }, { "text": "(N.D.N.Y. August 3, 2000), aff’d, 11 Fed. Appx. 31 (2d", "paragraph_id": "para_1418" }, { "text": "Cir. 2001). Indeed, the Second Circuit has expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_1419" }, { "text": "stated that the deleterious effects that directly flow", "paragraph_id": "para_1420" }, { "text": "from a sullied reputation, such as the potential impacts", "paragraph_id": "para_1421" }, { "text": "on employment prospects, romantic aspirations, friend-", "paragraph_id": "para_1422" }, { "text": "ships, self-esteem, or other typical consequences associ-", "paragraph_id": "para_1423" }, { "text": "ated with a negative reputation, fail to meet the necessary", "paragraph_id": "para_1424" }, { "text": "standard for this type of claim. See Valmonte v. Bane,", "paragraph_id": "para_1425" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tong18 F.3d 992, 1001 (2d Cir. 1994); see also Paterno v. City", "paragraph_id": "para_1426" }, { "text": "of New York, United States District Court, Docket No.", "paragraph_id": "para_1427" }, { "text": "17 Civ. 8278 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018), aff’d, 781", "paragraph_id": "para_1428" }, { "text": "Fed. Appx. 15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 589 U.S. 1060, 140", "paragraph_id": "para_1429" }, { "text": "S. Ct. 499, 205 L. Ed. 2d 319 (2019). We therefore reject", "paragraph_id": "para_1430" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs’ argument that damage to their business", "paragraph_id": "para_1431" }, { "text": "and goodwill satisfies the “plus” element under the law as", "paragraph_id": "para_1432" }, { "text": "recognized by the Second Circuit. See Sadallah v. Utica,", "paragraph_id": "para_1433" }, { "text": "supra, 38. We remain mindful of our Supreme Court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1434" }, { "text": "directive that this state’s courts should afford great", "paragraph_id": "para_1435" }, { "text": "weight to decisions of the Second Circuit interpreting", "paragraph_id": "para_1436" }, { "text": "federal statutes, particularly those involving a § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_1437" }, { "text": "claim. See, e.g., Feehan v. Marcone, 331 Conn. 436, 478,", "paragraph_id": "para_1438" }, { "text": "204 A.3d 666 (2019); Gleason v. Smolinski, 319 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1439" }, { "text": "394, 444 n.41, 125 A.3d 920 (2015); Schnabel v. Tyler,", "paragraph_id": "para_1440" }, { "text": "supra, 230 Conn. 743 n.4.31 Accordingly, we reject the", "paragraph_id": "para_1441" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ argument that humiliation resulting from", "paragraph_id": "para_1442" }, { "text": "the contents of the press release was sufficient to satisfy", "paragraph_id": "para_1443" }, { "text": "the “plus” requirement of a § 1983 stigma-plus claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_1444" }, { "text": "31The plaintiffs argue that the trial court failed to assign proper weight", "paragraph_id": "para_1445" }, { "text": "to the Second Circuit’s decision in Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_1446" }, { "text": "2005). Specifically, they assert that Velez stands for the proposition", "paragraph_id": "para_1447" }, { "text": "that “an actor perpetrating either the stigma or the plus element need", "paragraph_id": "para_1448" }, { "text": "not necessarily be a state actor in order to implicate a liberty inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_1449" }, { "text": "est . . . .” We disagree with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of Velez. In", "paragraph_id": "para_1450" }, { "text": "that case, the court held that “perfect parity in the origin of both the", "paragraph_id": "para_1451" }, { "text": "‘stigma’ and the ‘plus’ is not required to state the infringement of a", "paragraph_id": "para_1452" }, { "text": "‘stigma-plus’ liberty interest. . . . When government actors defame a", "paragraph_id": "para_1453" }, { "text": "person and—either previously or subsequently—deprive them of some", "paragraph_id": "para_1454" }, { "text": "tangible legal right or status . . . a liberty interest may be implicated,", "paragraph_id": "para_1455" }, { "text": "even though the ‘stigma’ and the ‘plus’ were not imposed at precisely the", "paragraph_id": "para_1456" }, { "text": "same time.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Velez v. Levy, supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_1457" }, { "text": "89. The court further explained that the stigma and the “plus” must be", "paragraph_id": "para_1458" }, { "text": "claimed to be sufficiently proximate. See id. “This requirement will be", "paragraph_id": "para_1459" }, { "text": "satisfied where (1) the stigma and plus would, to a reasonable observer,", "paragraph_id": "para_1460" }, { "text": "appear connected—for example, due to their order of occurrence . . . or", "paragraph_id": "para_1461" }, { "text": "their origin . . . and (2) the actor imposing the plus adopted (explicitly", "paragraph_id": "para_1462" }, { "text": "or implicitly) those statements in doing so. There is no rigid require-", "paragraph_id": "para_1463" }, { "text": "ment, therefore, that both the ‘stigma’ and the ‘plus’ must issue from", "paragraph_id": "para_1464" }, { "text": "the same government actor or at the same time.” (Citations omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1465" }, { "text": "Id. We disagree, therefore, with the plaintiffs’ argument that, based on", "paragraph_id": "para_1466" }, { "text": "the facts alleged in the amended complaint, Velez supports a stigma-plus", "paragraph_id": "para_1467" }, { "text": "claim based on the “plus” being imposed by nonstate actors.", "paragraph_id": "para_1468" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. TongNext, the plaintiffs argue that the failure to afford", "paragraph_id": "para_1469" }, { "text": "them a hearing regarding the contents of the press release", "paragraph_id": "para_1470" }, { "text": "resulted in an alteration of their status by the state. Spe-", "paragraph_id": "para_1471" }, { "text": "cifically, they contend that the “plain import of [General", "paragraph_id": "para_1472" }, { "text": "Statutes §§] 19a-17, 20-103a (b), 20-114 (a) (5), 20-114", "paragraph_id": "para_1473" }, { "text": "(a) (8) and 20-114 (b) (3), analyzed together, unequivo-", "paragraph_id": "para_1474" }, { "text": "cally express the state imposed requirement that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1475" }, { "text": "practitioner must be afforded a hearing.” The plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_1476" }, { "text": "further contend that the defendants essentially adjudi-", "paragraph_id": "para_1477" }, { "text": "cated Mohammadi as having committed fraud without", "paragraph_id": "para_1478" }, { "text": "a hearing or concession of liability and that this was as", "paragraph_id": "para_1479" }, { "text": "severe, if not moreso, than the implementation of for-", "paragraph_id": "para_1480" }, { "text": "mal disciplinary action. Finally, they maintain that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1481" }, { "text": "failure to afford them a hearing prior to the issuance of", "paragraph_id": "para_1482" }, { "text": "the press release constituted a state imposed alteration", "paragraph_id": "para_1483" }, { "text": "of the plaintiffs’ status by way of damages to Moham-", "paragraph_id": "para_1484" }, { "text": "madi’s reputation and professional standing, including", "paragraph_id": "para_1485" }, { "text": "among insurers.", "paragraph_id": "para_1486" }, { "text": "The defendants respond that the plaintiffs have not", "paragraph_id": "para_1487" }, { "text": "been subject to any professional discipline and, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1488" }, { "text": "cannot claim to have been denied the right to a hearing", "paragraph_id": "para_1489" }, { "text": "in the absence of that predicate event. We agree. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1490" }, { "text": "statute specifically referenced in the plaintiffs’ amended", "paragraph_id": "para_1491" }, { "text": "complaint, § 20-103a (b), sets forth certain procedural", "paragraph_id": "para_1492" }, { "text": "requirements for the Dental Commission and directs that", "paragraph_id": "para_1493" }, { "text": "body to “(1) hear and decide matters concerning suspen-", "paragraph_id": "para_1494" }, { "text": "sion or revocation of licensure, (2) adjudicate complaints", "paragraph_id": "para_1495" }, { "text": "filed against practitioners and (3) impose sanctions where", "paragraph_id": "para_1496" }, { "text": "appropriate.”32 No complaint was made to the Dental", "paragraph_id": "para_1497" }, { "text": "Commission regarding the conduct of the plaintiffs,", "paragraph_id": "para_1498" }, { "text": "and it did not suspend or revoke Mohammadi’s license to", "paragraph_id": "para_1499" }, { "text": "practice dentistry, or impose sanctions on the plaintiffs.", "paragraph_id": "para_1500" }, { "text": "We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs have failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_1501" }, { "text": "support their assertion that a dentist accused of Medic-", "paragraph_id": "para_1502" }, { "text": "aid billing fraud is entitled to a hearing pursuant to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1503" }, { "text": "language of § 20-103a (b), or any of the statutes cited by", "paragraph_id": "para_1504" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs,33 under these facts and circumstances. For", "paragraph_id": "para_1505" }, { "text": "32See footnote 29 of this opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1506" }, { "text": "33In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs assert that, in addition to", "paragraph_id": "para_1507" }, { "text": "§ 20-103a (b), §§ 19a-17 and 20-114 (a) (5) and (8), and (b) (3), when", "paragraph_id": "para_1508" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthese reasons, we conclude that the amended complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_1509" }, { "text": "failed to set forth the facts necessary to demonstrate a", "paragraph_id": "para_1510" }, { "text": "violation of procedural due process under a stigma-plus", "paragraph_id": "para_1511" }, { "text": "theory. The court therefore properly determined that this", "paragraph_id": "para_1512" }, { "text": "count was subject to the defense of qualified immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_1513" }, { "text": "B", "paragraph_id": "para_1514" }, { "text": "Count two of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint set", "paragraph_id": "para_1515" }, { "text": "forth a § 1983 claim based on an alleged violation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1516" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ right to be free from false statements under", "paragraph_id": "para_1517" }, { "text": "considered together, set forth a state imposed requirement that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1518" }, { "text": "practitioner is entitled to a hearing. The plaintiffs further contend", "paragraph_id": "para_1519" }, { "text": "that “[t]he defendants failed to afford the plaintiff Mohammadi, a", "paragraph_id": "para_1520" }, { "text": "duly licensed dentist, the full panoply of administrative procedures,", "paragraph_id": "para_1521" }, { "text": "including a hearing, prior to the publication of such defamatory state-", "paragraph_id": "para_1522" }, { "text": "ments on the state website, which statements included the accusation", "paragraph_id": "para_1523" }, { "text": "that [non-Dental Assisting National Board] radiology certified dental", "paragraph_id": "para_1524" }, { "text": "assistants took radiographs while the plaintiffs submitted claims for", "paragraph_id": "para_1525" }, { "text": "missing or unnecessary restorations.” See footnote 10 of this opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1526" }, { "text": "Section 19a-17 (a) sets forth the various actions that a board such as", "paragraph_id": "para_1527" }, { "text": "the Dental Commission, on the finding of good cause, may take against", "paragraph_id": "para_1528" }, { "text": "a practitioner under its jurisdiction, such as revocation or suspension", "paragraph_id": "para_1529" }, { "text": "of a professional license, censure or reprimand, restriction of the right", "paragraph_id": "para_1530" }, { "text": "to practice, placement of a practitioner on probation, requiring profes-", "paragraph_id": "para_1531" }, { "text": "sional education, and assessing a civil penalty.", "paragraph_id": "para_1532" }, { "text": "Although § 19a-17 has been amended since the events underlying this", "paragraph_id": "para_1533" }, { "text": "appeal; see, e.g., Public Acts 2017, No. 17-10, § 1; those amendments", "paragraph_id": "para_1534" }, { "text": "have no bearing on the merits of this appeal. We therefore refer to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1535" }, { "text": "current revision of the statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_1536" }, { "text": "Subdivisions (5) and (8) of § 20-114 (a) provide, respectively, that", "paragraph_id": "para_1537" }, { "text": "the Dental Commission may take any of the actions authorized by §", "paragraph_id": "para_1538" }, { "text": "19a-17 for “the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or of", "paragraph_id": "para_1539" }, { "text": "the regulations adopted hereunder or the refusal to comply with any of", "paragraph_id": "para_1540" }, { "text": "said provisions or regulations” and for “engaging in fraud or material", "paragraph_id": "para_1541" }, { "text": "deception in the course of professional activities . . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_1542" }, { "text": "Section 20-114 (b) provides in relevant part: “For purposes of subdi-", "paragraph_id": "para_1543" }, { "text": "vision (8) of subsection (a) of this section, fraud or material deception", "paragraph_id": "para_1544" }, { "text": "shall include, but not be limited to, the following practices . . . (3)", "paragraph_id": "para_1545" }, { "text": "intentionally describing a dental procedure incorrectly on a third-party", "paragraph_id": "para_1546" }, { "text": "claim form in order to receive a greater payment or reimbursement or", "paragraph_id": "para_1547" }, { "text": "intentionally misrepresenting a dental procedure not otherwise eligible", "paragraph_id": "para_1548" }, { "text": "for payment or reimbursement on such claim form for the purpose of", "paragraph_id": "para_1549" }, { "text": "receiving payment or reimbursement . . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_1550" }, { "text": "We iterate that, as the plaintiffs have not been subject to any disciplin-", "paragraph_id": "para_1551" }, { "text": "ary action by the Dental Commission, their claims of entitlement to a", "paragraph_id": "para_1552" }, { "text": "hearing before that body are unfounded and without merit.", "paragraph_id": "para_1553" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). Specifically, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1554" }, { "text": "plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ press release con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1555" }, { "text": "tained false or misleading words or terms regarding the", "paragraph_id": "para_1556" }, { "text": "rendition of dental services that were likely to deceive", "paragraph_id": "para_1557" }, { "text": "the public regarding the plaintiffs’ commercial activi-", "paragraph_id": "para_1558" }, { "text": "ties, thereby constituting a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125", "paragraph_id": "para_1559" }, { "text": "(a). Further, the plaintiffs claim that, as a result, they", "paragraph_id": "para_1560" }, { "text": "suffered injury “to their commercial interests in their", "paragraph_id": "para_1561" }, { "text": "respective reputations.”34", "paragraph_id": "para_1562" }, { "text": "The trial court determined that the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_1563" }, { "text": "amended complaint failed to include an allegation that", "paragraph_id": "para_1564" }, { "text": "34The United States Supreme Court has stated that 15 U.S.C. § 1125", "paragraph_id": "para_1565" }, { "text": "(a) “creates two distinct bases of liability: false association, § 1125 (a)", "paragraph_id": "para_1566" }, { "text": "(1) (A), and false advertising, § 1125 (a) (1) (B).” Lexmark International,", "paragraph_id": "para_1567" }, { "text": "Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 122, 134 S. Ct.", "paragraph_id": "para_1568" }, { "text": "1377, 188 L. Ed. 2d 392 (2014); see also Gibson v. SCE Group, Inc.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1569" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals, Docket No. 22-916 (2d Cir. June 28,", "paragraph_id": "para_1570" }, { "text": "2023); Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 3d 348, 362 (S.D.N.Y.", "paragraph_id": "para_1571" }, { "text": "2025). In the present case, the trial court noted in its memorandum of", "paragraph_id": "para_1572" }, { "text": "decision that the plaintiffs, in their September 19, 2023 memorandum", "paragraph_id": "para_1573" }, { "text": "of law in support of their objection to the defendants’ motion to dismiss,", "paragraph_id": "para_1574" }, { "text": "clarified that their claimed violation of the Lanham Act was limited to", "paragraph_id": "para_1575" }, { "text": "the false advertising basis set forth in § 1125 (a) (1) (B).", "paragraph_id": "para_1576" }, { "text": "On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that their amended complaint alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_1577" }, { "text": "both false association and false advertising violations of the Lanham", "paragraph_id": "para_1578" }, { "text": "Act. As the plaintiffs did not allege or pursue before the trial court a", "paragraph_id": "para_1579" }, { "text": "claimed violation of that federal statute based on false association,", "paragraph_id": "para_1580" }, { "text": "we decline to address it on appeal. “Our appellate courts, as a general", "paragraph_id": "para_1581" }, { "text": "practice, will not review claims made for the first time on appeal. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1582" }, { "text": "[A]n appellate court is under no obligation to consider a claim that is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1583" }, { "text": "distinctly raised at the trial level. . . . [B]ecause our review is limited to", "paragraph_id": "para_1584" }, { "text": "matters in the record, we [also] will not address issues not decided by", "paragraph_id": "para_1585" }, { "text": "the trial court. . . . The purpose of our preservation requirements is to", "paragraph_id": "para_1586" }, { "text": "ensure fair notice of a party’s claims to both the trial court and oppos-", "paragraph_id": "para_1587" }, { "text": "ing parties. . . . These requirements are not simply formalities. They", "paragraph_id": "para_1588" }, { "text": "serve to alert the trial court to potential error while there is still time", "paragraph_id": "para_1589" }, { "text": "for the court to act. . . . The reason for the rule is obvious: to permit a", "paragraph_id": "para_1590" }, { "text": "party to raise a claim on appeal that has not been raised at trial—after", "paragraph_id": "para_1591" }, { "text": "it is too late for the trial court or the opposing party to address the", "paragraph_id": "para_1592" }, { "text": "claim—would encourage trial by ambuscade, which is unfair to both the", "paragraph_id": "para_1593" }, { "text": "trial court and the opposing party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1594" }, { "text": "Guddo v. Guddo, 185 Conn. App. 283, 286–87, 196 A.3d 1246 (2018);", "paragraph_id": "para_1595" }, { "text": "see also Practice Book § 60-5 (reviewing court is not bound to consider", "paragraph_id": "para_1596" }, { "text": "claim not raised at trial); Ancona v. Eller, 240 Conn. App. 63, 72, ___", "paragraph_id": "para_1597" }, { "text": "A.3d ___ (2026) (axiomatic that claims of error ordinarily will not be", "paragraph_id": "para_1598" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe defendants’ press release constituted a commercial", "paragraph_id": "para_1599" }, { "text": "advertisement or promotion, a necessary element to", "paragraph_id": "para_1600" }, { "text": "establish a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (1) (B). On", "paragraph_id": "para_1601" }, { "text": "appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the press release consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_1602" }, { "text": "tuted commercial advertising because it was an attempt", "paragraph_id": "para_1603" }, { "text": "“to broadcast to the public the defendants’ heroic efforts", "paragraph_id": "para_1604" }, { "text": "in purportedly exposing fraudulent activities, the only", "paragraph_id": "para_1605" }, { "text": "reasonable purpose of which was self-promotion, or,", "paragraph_id": "para_1606" }, { "text": "essentially advertising.” We are not persuaded by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1607" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ argument.", "paragraph_id": "para_1608" }, { "text": "The relevant statutory language provides: “(1) Any", "paragraph_id": "para_1609" }, { "text": "person who, on or in connection with any goods or ser-", "paragraph_id": "para_1610" }, { "text": "vices, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any", "paragraph_id": "para_1611" }, { "text": "word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination", "paragraph_id": "para_1612" }, { "text": "thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or mis-", "paragraph_id": "para_1613" }, { "text": "leading description of fact, or false or misleading repre-", "paragraph_id": "para_1614" }, { "text": "sentation of fact, which . . . (B) in commercial advertising", "paragraph_id": "para_1615" }, { "text": "or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics,", "paragraph_id": "para_1616" }, { "text": "qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1617" }, { "text": "goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable", "paragraph_id": "para_1618" }, { "text": "in a civil action by any person who believes that he or", "paragraph_id": "para_1619" }, { "text": "she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.” (Emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_1620" }, { "text": "added.) 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (2012).", "paragraph_id": "para_1621" }, { "text": "The Second Circuit has stated that, “to constitute", "paragraph_id": "para_1622" }, { "text": "commercial advertising or promotion under the Lan-", "paragraph_id": "para_1623" }, { "text": "ham Act, a statement must be: (1) commercial speech,", "paragraph_id": "para_1624" }, { "text": "(2) made for the purpose of influencing consumers to", "paragraph_id": "para_1625" }, { "text": "buy [a] defendant’s goods or services, and (3) although", "paragraph_id": "para_1626" }, { "text": "representations less formal than those made as part of", "paragraph_id": "para_1627" }, { "text": "a classic advertising campaign may suffice, they must", "paragraph_id": "para_1628" }, { "text": "be disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing", "paragraph_id": "para_1629" }, { "text": "public.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gmurzyn-", "paragraph_id": "para_1630" }, { "text": "ska v. Hutton, 355 F.3d 206, 210 (2d Cir. 2004); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_1631" }, { "text": "Boule v. Hutton, 328 F.3d 84, 90–91 (2d Cir. 2003).", "paragraph_id": "para_1632" }, { "text": "considered on appeal if they were never raised in and acted on by trial", "paragraph_id": "para_1633" }, { "text": "court), petition for cert. filed (Conn. July 24, 2026) (No. 260110).", "paragraph_id": "para_1634" }, { "text": "Accordingly, we limit our consideration of the plaintiffs’ claim to one", "paragraph_id": "para_1635" }, { "text": "of false advertising under the Lanham Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_1636" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. TongFollowing the analytical path used by the trial court,", "paragraph_id": "para_1637" }, { "text": "we will assume, arguendo, that the plaintiffs’ amended", "paragraph_id": "para_1638" }, { "text": "complaint met the other elements of 15 U.S.C. § 1125", "paragraph_id": "para_1639" }, { "text": "(a) (1) (B).35 We agree with the court’s analysis that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1640" }, { "text": "plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts to show that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1641" }, { "text": "defendants’ press release was a commercial advertise-", "paragraph_id": "para_1642" }, { "text": "ment or promotion and that the failure to do so is fatal", "paragraph_id": "para_1643" }, { "text": "to their Lanham Act claim. Specifically, the allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_1644" }, { "text": "in the amended complaint fail to establish that the press", "paragraph_id": "para_1645" }, { "text": "release was made for the purpose of influencing con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1646" }, { "text": "sumers to buy goods or services provided by the attor-", "paragraph_id": "para_1647" }, { "text": "ney general or the commissioner of the Department of", "paragraph_id": "para_1648" }, { "text": "Social Services, and, therefore, the plaintiffs’ claim of a", "paragraph_id": "para_1649" }, { "text": "Lanham Act violation fails. To the extent the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_1650" }, { "text": "argue in their appellate brief that the press release con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1651" }, { "text": "stituted self-promotion by the defendants, the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_1652" }, { "text": "have provided no law to support their contention that", "paragraph_id": "para_1653" }, { "text": "such conduct falls within the ambit of the Lanham Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_1654" }, { "text": "We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly", "paragraph_id": "para_1655" }, { "text": "determined that the defendants were entitled to quali-", "paragraph_id": "para_1656" }, { "text": "fied immunity with respect to count two. See Braham", "paragraph_id": "para_1657" }, { "text": "v. Newbould, supra, 160 Conn. App. 306–307.", "paragraph_id": "para_1658" }, { "text": "C", "paragraph_id": "para_1659" }, { "text": "Count five of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint set", "paragraph_id": "para_1660" }, { "text": "forth a § 1983 claim based on an alleged violation of", "paragraph_id": "para_1661" }, { "text": "35We, therefore, need not address each of the arguments set forth", "paragraph_id": "para_1662" }, { "text": "in the defendants’ appellate brief with regard to this particular issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_1663" }, { "text": "We do note, however, that the defendants’ contention that their press", "paragraph_id": "para_1664" }, { "text": "release did not constitute commercial speech—a subelement in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1665" }, { "text": "determination of whether a party engaged in commercial advertising or", "paragraph_id": "para_1666" }, { "text": "promotion—and therefore fell beyond of the scope of 15 U.S.C. § 1125", "paragraph_id": "para_1667" }, { "text": "(a) (1) (B), appears to be consistent with controlling federal law. See,", "paragraph_id": "para_1668" }, { "text": "e.g., Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 66–67, 103", "paragraph_id": "para_1669" }, { "text": "S. Ct. 2875, 77 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1983) (although core notion of commer-", "paragraph_id": "para_1670" }, { "text": "cial speech is that which does nothing more than propose commercial", "paragraph_id": "para_1671" }, { "text": "transaction, pamphlets that were advertisements with reference to", "paragraph_id": "para_1672" }, { "text": "specific product and fact that sender had economic motive for mailing", "paragraph_id": "para_1673" }, { "text": "them supported conclusion that pamphlets were commercial speech);", "paragraph_id": "para_1674" }, { "text": "see also Volokh v. James, 148 F.4th 71, 85 (2d Cir. 2025); Anderson", "paragraph_id": "para_1675" }, { "text": "v. Treadwell, 294 F.3d 453, 460 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1676" }, { "text": "906, 123 S. Ct. 1482, 155 L. Ed. 2d 225 (2003).", "paragraph_id": "para_1677" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongthe plaintiffs’ rights to substantive due process, spe-", "paragraph_id": "para_1678" }, { "text": "cifically, that the issuance of the press release consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_1679" }, { "text": "tuted a deliberate violation of the plaintiffs’ rights to be", "paragraph_id": "para_1680" }, { "text": "free from the deprivation of their liberty and property", "paragraph_id": "para_1681" }, { "text": "interests and the involuntary alteration of their status.", "paragraph_id": "para_1682" }, { "text": "On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court, in", "paragraph_id": "para_1683" }, { "text": "dismissing this claim, improperly focused on matters", "paragraph_id": "para_1684" }, { "text": "relating to marriage, family, procreation and the right", "paragraph_id": "para_1685" }, { "text": "to bodily integrity, and failed to consider the deliberate", "paragraph_id": "para_1686" }, { "text": "indifference standard for culpability set forth by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1687" }, { "text": "United States Supreme Court in County of Sacramento", "paragraph_id": "para_1688" }, { "text": "v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 851, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 140 L.", "paragraph_id": "para_1689" }, { "text": "Ed. 2d 1043 (1998). The defendants counter, inter alia,", "paragraph_id": "para_1690" }, { "text": "that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint failed to identify", "paragraph_id": "para_1691" }, { "text": "a relevant constitutional interest and, therefore, that", "paragraph_id": "para_1692" }, { "text": "the court properly dismissed this count. We agree with", "paragraph_id": "para_1693" }, { "text": "the defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_1694" }, { "text": "In count five of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_1695" }, { "text": "alleged that the defendants’ press release resulted in", "paragraph_id": "para_1696" }, { "text": "deliberate indifference to their “rights to be free from", "paragraph_id": "para_1697" }, { "text": "the deprivation of their liberty and property interests", "paragraph_id": "para_1698" }, { "text": "and from an involuntary alteration of their status . . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_1699" }, { "text": "The amended complaint further alleged that Mohammadi", "paragraph_id": "para_1700" }, { "text": "had suffered significant mental and emotional distress as", "paragraph_id": "para_1701" }, { "text": "a direct result of the defendants’ actions. Additionally,", "paragraph_id": "para_1702" }, { "text": "the other two plaintiffs claimed significant damage to", "paragraph_id": "para_1703" }, { "text": "their businesses as a result of the defendants’ action.", "paragraph_id": "para_1704" }, { "text": "In dismissing count five, the trial court concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_1705" }, { "text": "that the plaintiffs had failed to identify a clearly estab-", "paragraph_id": "para_1706" }, { "text": "lished fundamental right that was violated under the", "paragraph_id": "para_1707" }, { "text": "due process clause. In its analysis, the court noted that", "paragraph_id": "para_1708" }, { "text": "rights not explicitly mentioned in the federal constitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1709" }, { "text": "tion or deeply rooted in the history and/or traditions", "paragraph_id": "para_1710" }, { "text": "of the United States are not protected by substantive", "paragraph_id": "para_1711" }, { "text": "due process. It explained that, although this protection", "paragraph_id": "para_1712" }, { "text": "applies to fundamental rights such as those relating to", "paragraph_id": "para_1713" }, { "text": "marriage, family procreation and bodily integrity,36 it", "paragraph_id": "para_1714" }, { "text": "36See, e.g., Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719–20, 117 S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1715" }, { "text": "Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997).", "paragraph_id": "para_1716" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongdoes not encompass all property rights. It then concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_1717" }, { "text": "that the plaintiffs had failed to identify specifically the", "paragraph_id": "para_1718" }, { "text": "liberty or property interests deprived by the issuance of", "paragraph_id": "para_1719" }, { "text": "the press release that warranted substantive due process", "paragraph_id": "para_1720" }, { "text": "protection.", "paragraph_id": "para_1721" }, { "text": "The trial court further determined that, reading the", "paragraph_id": "para_1722" }, { "text": "amended complaint as alleging the substantive due pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_1723" }, { "text": "cess right to be free from harm to reputation or free", "paragraph_id": "para_1724" }, { "text": "from interference with employment, it fell “far short of", "paragraph_id": "para_1725" }, { "text": "asserting a violation of substantive due process rights.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1726" }, { "text": "First, the court stated that reputation alone is not a lib-", "paragraph_id": "para_1727" }, { "text": "erty or property interest sufficient to invoke this type", "paragraph_id": "para_1728" }, { "text": "of constitutional protection. Second, under controlling", "paragraph_id": "para_1729" }, { "text": "federal law, the complete loss of the right to practice", "paragraph_id": "para_1730" }, { "text": "one’s profession, rather than the loss of business profits,", "paragraph_id": "para_1731" }, { "text": "is required for the protection of substantive due process,", "paragraph_id": "para_1732" }, { "text": "and the amended complaint contained no allegation that", "paragraph_id": "para_1733" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs were prohibited from continuing in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1734" }, { "text": "practice or business of dentistry. For these reasons, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1735" }, { "text": "court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege in their", "paragraph_id": "para_1736" }, { "text": "amended complaint that their clearly established substan-", "paragraph_id": "para_1737" }, { "text": "tive due process rights were violated by the press release", "paragraph_id": "para_1738" }, { "text": "issued by the defendants. Finally, the court observed", "paragraph_id": "para_1739" }, { "text": "that, had it proceeded in its analysis, it would have con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1740" }, { "text": "cluded that the defendants’ actions “did not rise to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1741" }, { "text": "level of the egregious [or shocking] conduct required to", "paragraph_id": "para_1742" }, { "text": "assert a violation of substantive due process rights.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1743" }, { "text": "We begin with a summary of the relevant legal prin-", "paragraph_id": "para_1744" }, { "text": "ciples. “The [f]ourteenth [a]mendment provides that no", "paragraph_id": "para_1745" }, { "text": "state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or prop-", "paragraph_id": "para_1746" }, { "text": "erty, without due process of law. . . . The substantive", "paragraph_id": "para_1747" }, { "text": "component of the [d]ue [p]rocess [c]lause prevents the", "paragraph_id": "para_1748" }, { "text": "government from engaging in conduct that shocks the", "paragraph_id": "para_1749" }, { "text": "conscience or interferes with rights implicit in the con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1750" }, { "text": "cept of ordered liberty.” (Citation omitted; internal quo-", "paragraph_id": "para_1751" }, { "text": "tation marks omitted.) Article 13, LLC v. Ponce de Leon", "paragraph_id": "para_1752" }, { "text": "Federal Bank, 175 F.4th 397, 406 (2d Cir. 2026); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_1753" }, { "text": "In re Gabriella M., 221 Conn. App. 827, 835 n.11, 303", "paragraph_id": "para_1754" }, { "text": "A.3d 319, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 925, 304 A.3d 443", "paragraph_id": "para_1755" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tong(2023). The United States Supreme Court, however, has", "paragraph_id": "para_1756" }, { "text": "cautioned that “we ha[ve] always been reluctant to expand", "paragraph_id": "para_1757" }, { "text": "the concept of substantive due process because guideposts", "paragraph_id": "para_1758" }, { "text": "for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area", "paragraph_id": "para_1759" }, { "text": "are scarce and open-ended. . . . By extending constitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1760" }, { "text": "tional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest,", "paragraph_id": "para_1761" }, { "text": "we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena", "paragraph_id": "para_1762" }, { "text": "of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_1763" }, { "text": "exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break", "paragraph_id": "para_1764" }, { "text": "new ground in this field . . . lest the liberty protected by", "paragraph_id": "para_1765" }, { "text": "the [d]ue [p]rocess [c]lause be subtly transformed into the", "paragraph_id": "para_1766" }, { "text": "policy preferences of the [m]embers of this [c]ourt . . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_1767" }, { "text": "(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1768" }, { "text": "Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1769" }, { "text": "Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997); see also County of", "paragraph_id": "para_1770" }, { "text": "Sacramento v. Lewis, supra, 523 U.S. 842.", "paragraph_id": "para_1771" }, { "text": "The Second Circuit utilizes the following test: “The", "paragraph_id": "para_1772" }, { "text": "first step in substantive due process analysis is to identify", "paragraph_id": "para_1773" }, { "text": "the constitutional right at stake. . . . Next, the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_1774" }, { "text": "must demonstrate that the state action was so egregious,", "paragraph_id": "para_1775" }, { "text": "so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the", "paragraph_id": "para_1776" }, { "text": "contemporary conscience. . . . The interference with the", "paragraph_id": "para_1777" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s protected right must be so shocking, arbitrary,", "paragraph_id": "para_1778" }, { "text": "and egregious that the [d]ue [p]rocess [c]lause would not", "paragraph_id": "para_1779" }, { "text": "countenance it even were it accompanied by full proce-", "paragraph_id": "para_1780" }, { "text": "dural protection.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_1781" }, { "text": "marks omitted.) Hurd v. Fredenburgh, 984 F.3d 1075,", "paragraph_id": "para_1782" }, { "text": "1087 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 595 U.S. 922, 142 S. Ct. 109,", "paragraph_id": "para_1783" }, { "text": "211 L. Ed. 2d 31 (2021); see also Matzell v. Annucci, 64", "paragraph_id": "para_1784" }, { "text": "F.4th 425, 436 (2d Cir. 2023); Jordan v. Quiros, United", "paragraph_id": "para_1785" }, { "text": "States District Court, Docket No. 3:23-cv-254 (VAB) (D.", "paragraph_id": "para_1786" }, { "text": "Conn. June 28, 2024).", "paragraph_id": "para_1787" }, { "text": "In the present case, the trial court focused its analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_1788" }, { "text": "on the first prong of the test used by the Second Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_1789" }, { "text": "and concluded that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_1790" }, { "text": "failed to allege a violation of a clearly established con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1791" }, { "text": "stitutional right protected by the due process clause. On", "paragraph_id": "para_1792" }, { "text": "appeal, the plaintiffs focus on the deliberate indifference", "paragraph_id": "para_1793" }, { "text": "standard discussed by the United States Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1794" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongin County of Sacramento v. Lewis, supra, 523 U.S. 851,", "paragraph_id": "para_1795" }, { "text": "and contend that the trial court improperly failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_1796" }, { "text": "consider that analysis in dismissing count five of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1797" }, { "text": "amended complaint on the basis of qualified immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_1798" }, { "text": "Specifically, the plaintiffs assert that, in cases involving", "paragraph_id": "para_1799" }, { "text": "the deliberate indifference standard discussed in Lewis,", "paragraph_id": "para_1800" }, { "text": "a court need not first identify the constitutional rights", "paragraph_id": "para_1801" }, { "text": "at stake. We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_1802" }, { "text": "A brief discussion of Lewis is necessary, therefore, to", "paragraph_id": "para_1803" }, { "text": "place the plaintiffs’ appellate argument in the appropri-", "paragraph_id": "para_1804" }, { "text": "ate context. In Lewis, the defendant sheriff had engaged", "paragraph_id": "para_1805" }, { "text": "in a high speed pursuit of a motorcycle operated by an", "paragraph_id": "para_1806" }, { "text": "eighteen year old driver who was carrying a sixteen year", "paragraph_id": "para_1807" }, { "text": "old passenger. Id., 836. Both the motorcycle and the", "paragraph_id": "para_1808" }, { "text": "patrol car reached speeds up to 100 miles per hour. Id.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1809" }, { "text": "837. The chase ended when the motorcycle tipped over.", "paragraph_id": "para_1810" }, { "text": "Id. The defendant sheriff attempted to stop and, although", "paragraph_id": "para_1811" }, { "text": "the operator of the motorcycle was able to get out of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1812" }, { "text": "way, the patrol vehicle skidded into the passenger while", "paragraph_id": "para_1813" }, { "text": "moving at forty miles per hour. Id. This impact propelled", "paragraph_id": "para_1814" }, { "text": "the passenger seventy feet down the road and caused", "paragraph_id": "para_1815" }, { "text": "his death. Id. The parents of the passenger, as repre-", "paragraph_id": "para_1816" }, { "text": "sentatives of his estate, brought a § 1983 claim alleging", "paragraph_id": "para_1817" }, { "text": "the deprivation of substantive due process rights. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1818" }, { "text": "The District Court granted summary judgment for the", "paragraph_id": "para_1819" }, { "text": "defendant sheriff on the ground that “no state or federal", "paragraph_id": "para_1820" }, { "text": "opinion published [before the date of the accident] sup-", "paragraph_id": "para_1821" }, { "text": "ports [their] view that [the passenger had] a [f]ourteenth", "paragraph_id": "para_1822" }, { "text": "[a]mendment substantive due process right in the con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1823" }, { "text": "text of high speed police pursuits.” (Internal quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_1824" }, { "text": "marks omitted.) Id., 837–38. The Ninth Circuit reversed", "paragraph_id": "para_1825" }, { "text": "the judgment of the District Court, concluding that", "paragraph_id": "para_1826" }, { "text": "the law regarding police liability for death or injury in", "paragraph_id": "para_1827" }, { "text": "such pursuits was clearly established at the time of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1828" }, { "text": "incident. See id., 838. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_1829" }, { "text": "held that “the appropriate degree of fault to be applied", "paragraph_id": "para_1830" }, { "text": "to high-speed police pursuits is deliberate indifference", "paragraph_id": "para_1831" }, { "text": "to, or reckless disregard for, a person’s right to life and", "paragraph_id": "para_1832" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongpersonal security . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal", "paragraph_id": "para_1833" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted.) Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1834" }, { "text": "On appeal, the United States Supreme Court first", "paragraph_id": "para_1835" }, { "text": "recognized the specific constitutional right at stake,", "paragraph_id": "para_1836" }, { "text": "namely, that “[t]he allegation . . . that [the passenger]", "paragraph_id": "para_1837" }, { "text": "was deprived of his right to life in violation of substantive", "paragraph_id": "para_1838" }, { "text": "due process . . . .” Id., 840; see also id., 856 (Kennedy,", "paragraph_id": "para_1839" }, { "text": "J., concurring) (“[i]n the case before us, there can be no", "paragraph_id": "para_1840" }, { "text": "question that an interest protected by the text of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1841" }, { "text": "[c]onstitution is implicated: [t]he actions of the [s]tate", "paragraph_id": "para_1842" }, { "text": "were part of the causal chain resulting in the undoubted", "paragraph_id": "para_1843" }, { "text": "loss of life”); id., 862 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judg-", "paragraph_id": "para_1844" }, { "text": "ment) (“The first step of our analysis, of course, must be", "paragraph_id": "para_1845" }, { "text": "a ‘careful description’ of the right asserted . . . . Here", "paragraph_id": "para_1846" }, { "text": "the complaint alleges that the police officer deprived [the", "paragraph_id": "para_1847" }, { "text": "passenger] ‘of his [f]ourteenth [a]mendment right to life,", "paragraph_id": "para_1848" }, { "text": "liberty and property without due process of law when he", "paragraph_id": "para_1849" }, { "text": "operated his vehicle with recklessness, gross negligence", "paragraph_id": "para_1850" }, { "text": "and conscious disregard for his safety.’ . . . I agree with", "paragraph_id": "para_1851" }, { "text": "the [c]ourt’s conclusion that this asserts a substantive", "paragraph_id": "para_1852" }, { "text": "right to be free from ‘deliberate and reckless indifference", "paragraph_id": "para_1853" }, { "text": "to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at appre-", "paragraph_id": "para_1854" }, { "text": "hending a suspected offender.’ ” (Citations omitted.)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1855" }, { "text": "In turning to the second part of the substantive due", "paragraph_id": "para_1856" }, { "text": "process test, the Ninth Circuit traced the history of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1857" }, { "text": "“shocks the conscience” standard. Id., 846. It observed", "paragraph_id": "para_1858" }, { "text": "that, “[w]hile the measure of what is conscience shocking", "paragraph_id": "para_1859" }, { "text": "is no calibrated yard stick, it does . . . poin[t] the way.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1860" }, { "text": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 847. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_1861" }, { "text": "further explained that this doctrine does not apply any", "paragraph_id": "para_1862" }, { "text": "time “someone cloaked with state authority causes harm", "paragraph_id": "para_1863" }, { "text": "[and] the [f]ourteenth [a]mendment is not a font of tort", "paragraph_id": "para_1864" }, { "text": "law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may", "paragraph_id": "para_1865" }, { "text": "already be administered by the [s]tates . . . .” (Citation", "paragraph_id": "para_1866" }, { "text": "omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 848.", "paragraph_id": "para_1867" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit recognized that con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1868" }, { "text": "duct, such as deliberate indifference, may be actionable", "paragraph_id": "para_1869" }, { "text": "under the substantive due process doctrine and shock", "paragraph_id": "para_1870" }, { "text": "the conscience under certain factual scenarios but not", "paragraph_id": "para_1871" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongothers. See id., 849–52. For example, the court com-", "paragraph_id": "para_1872" }, { "text": "pared the instantaneous, split-second decisions made", "paragraph_id": "para_1873" }, { "text": "by the defendant sheriff during a tense, uncertain and", "paragraph_id": "para_1874" }, { "text": "rapidly evolving high speed police chase versus those", "paragraph_id": "para_1875" }, { "text": "choices made with regard to the medical needs of incar-", "paragraph_id": "para_1876" }, { "text": "cerated individuals awaiting trial, which rest “upon the", "paragraph_id": "para_1877" }, { "text": "luxury enjoyed by prison officials of having time to make", "paragraph_id": "para_1878" }, { "text": "unhurried judgments, upon the chance for repeated", "paragraph_id": "para_1879" }, { "text": "reflection, largely uncomplicated by the pulls of compet-", "paragraph_id": "para_1880" }, { "text": "ing obligations.” Id., 853; see also Robischung-Walsh", "paragraph_id": "para_1881" }, { "text": "v. Nassau County Police Dept., 421 Fed. Appx. 38, 41", "paragraph_id": "para_1882" }, { "text": "(2d Cir. 2011); Okin v. Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson", "paragraph_id": "para_1883" }, { "text": "Police Dept., 577 F.3d 415, 431 (2d Cir. 2009); see gener-", "paragraph_id": "para_1884" }, { "text": "ally Pena v. DePrisco, 432 F.3d 98, 113 (2d Cir. 2005)", "paragraph_id": "para_1885" }, { "text": "(“[a]s the very term deliberate indifference implies, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1886" }, { "text": "standard is sensibly employed only when actual delibera-", "paragraph_id": "para_1887" }, { "text": "tion is practical” (internal quotation marks omitted)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1888" }, { "text": "Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court reversed", "paragraph_id": "para_1889" }, { "text": "the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, concluding that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1890" }, { "text": "actions of the defendant sheriff did not, in a constitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1891" }, { "text": "tional sense, shock the conscience. See County of Sacra-", "paragraph_id": "para_1892" }, { "text": "mento v. Lewis, supra, 523 U.S. 855.", "paragraph_id": "para_1893" }, { "text": "Returning to the case before us, we turn to the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_1894" }, { "text": "tiffs’ contention that the trial court improperly failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_1895" }, { "text": "consider or apply the deliberate indifference standard.", "paragraph_id": "para_1896" }, { "text": "The plaintiffs further argue that the defendants lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_1897" }, { "text": "statutory or constitutional authority to issue the defama-", "paragraph_id": "para_1898" }, { "text": "tory press release and claim, generally, that the defen-", "paragraph_id": "para_1899" }, { "text": "dants’ deliberate indifference to their rights constituted", "paragraph_id": "para_1900" }, { "text": "a constitutional violation that satisfied the first part of", "paragraph_id": "para_1901" }, { "text": "the substantive due process test. We are not persuaded", "paragraph_id": "para_1902" }, { "text": "by this expansive interpretation of federal precedent.", "paragraph_id": "para_1903" }, { "text": "The trial court properly determined that the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_1904" }, { "text": "amended complaint failed to identify the constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_1905" }, { "text": "right at stake; that is, the liberty or property interest of", "paragraph_id": "para_1906" }, { "text": "which they were allegedly deprived, which is the first step", "paragraph_id": "para_1907" }, { "text": "in substantive due process analysis. See Goe v. Zucker, 43", "paragraph_id": "para_1908" }, { "text": "F.4th 19, 30 (2d Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub nom. Goe v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1909" }, { "text": "McDonald, 598 U.S. 1211, 143 S. Ct. 1020, 215 L. Ed.", "paragraph_id": "para_1910" }, { "text": "2d 188 (2023); Hurd v. Fredenburgh, supra, 984 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_1911" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tong1087; Sutton v. Stony Brook University, United States", "paragraph_id": "para_1912" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals, Docket No. 21-2055 (2d Cir. Septem-", "paragraph_id": "para_1913" }, { "text": "ber 27, 2022); see generally Conde v. Sharon, 421 Fed.", "paragraph_id": "para_1914" }, { "text": "Appx. 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2011) (in absence of constitution-", "paragraph_id": "para_1915" }, { "text": "ally protected right, substantive due process claim must", "paragraph_id": "para_1916" }, { "text": "fail). Accordingly, for these reasons, we conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_1917" }, { "text": "the court properly dismissed count five of the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_1918" }, { "text": "amended complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_1919" }, { "text": "D", "paragraph_id": "para_1920" }, { "text": "Count six of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint sets", "paragraph_id": "para_1921" }, { "text": "forth a § 1983 claim based on alleged violations of their", "paragraph_id": "para_1922" }, { "text": "right to privacy under the fourteenth amendment. Spe-", "paragraph_id": "para_1923" }, { "text": "cifically, they allege that the defendants’ press release", "paragraph_id": "para_1924" }, { "text": "contained “embellishments” consisting of unfounded", "paragraph_id": "para_1925" }, { "text": "accusations of fraudulent conduct that violated the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_1926" }, { "text": "tiffs’ constitutionally protected privacy rights and,", "paragraph_id": "para_1927" }, { "text": "therefore, that the trial court improperly dismissed this", "paragraph_id": "para_1928" }, { "text": "count on the basis of qualified immunity. The defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_1929" }, { "text": "counter, inter alia, that the plaintiffs failed to establish", "paragraph_id": "para_1930" }, { "text": "that the disclosure of business matters and information", "paragraph_id": "para_1931" }, { "text": "violated the constitutional right to privacy. We agree", "paragraph_id": "para_1932" }, { "text": "with the defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_1933" }, { "text": "In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged in a", "paragraph_id": "para_1934" }, { "text": "cursory fashion that the “defendants’ actions in issuing", "paragraph_id": "para_1935" }, { "text": "the press release violated the plaintiffs’ substantive due", "paragraph_id": "para_1936" }, { "text": "process rights of privacy guaranteed under the [f]our-", "paragraph_id": "para_1937" }, { "text": "teenth [a]mendment to the United States [c]onstitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1938" }, { "text": "tion, which violation further constituted a violation of", "paragraph_id": "para_1939" }, { "text": "[§ 1983], which actions further constituted a depriva-", "paragraph_id": "para_1940" }, { "text": "tion of the plaintiffs’ liberty and an alteration of their", "paragraph_id": "para_1941" }, { "text": "status.” The plaintiffs further alleged that, as a direct", "paragraph_id": "para_1942" }, { "text": "and proximate result of the defendants’ conduct, they", "paragraph_id": "para_1943" }, { "text": "suffered significant mental and emotional distress and", "paragraph_id": "para_1944" }, { "text": "significant damage to their businesses.", "paragraph_id": "para_1945" }, { "text": "In addressing the defendants’ qualified immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_1946" }, { "text": "defense with respect to this count, the trial court noted", "paragraph_id": "para_1947" }, { "text": "that the amended complaint failed to identify the specific", "paragraph_id": "para_1948" }, { "text": "part of the press release that amounted to a disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_1949" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongof the plaintiffs’ personal information. The court inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_1950" }, { "text": "preted the allegations in count six as relating to the disclo-", "paragraph_id": "para_1951" }, { "text": "sure of the plaintiffs’ business matters and information", "paragraph_id": "para_1952" }, { "text": "in the press release. It then stated that the plaintiffs had", "paragraph_id": "para_1953" }, { "text": "failed to cite any authority to support their claim that", "paragraph_id": "para_1954" }, { "text": "the release of such information amounts to a violation", "paragraph_id": "para_1955" }, { "text": "of the right to privacy in personal information, and,", "paragraph_id": "para_1956" }, { "text": "therefore, this claim failed. The court further reasoned", "paragraph_id": "para_1957" }, { "text": "that, to the extent the plaintiffs alleged a right to be", "paragraph_id": "para_1958" }, { "text": "free from unwanted publicity, that contention could not", "paragraph_id": "para_1959" }, { "text": "survive the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Citing Reilly", "paragraph_id": "para_1960" }, { "text": "v. Leonard, 459 F. Supp. 291, 300 (D. Conn. 1978), the", "paragraph_id": "para_1961" }, { "text": "court explained that the right to be free from unwanted", "paragraph_id": "para_1962" }, { "text": "publicity is protected, if at all, by the common law and is", "paragraph_id": "para_1963" }, { "text": "not a federal right. Accordingly, the court stated: “As", "paragraph_id": "para_1964" }, { "text": "unwanted publicity cannot be the basis for a constitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1965" }, { "text": "tional violation of privacy claim, the plaintiffs cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_1966" }, { "text": "rely on such as a basis for a § 1983 claim.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1967" }, { "text": "On appeal, the plaintiffs reassert their contention", "paragraph_id": "para_1968" }, { "text": "that the information contained in the defendants’ press", "paragraph_id": "para_1969" }, { "text": "release constituted an invasion of their constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_1970" }, { "text": "right to privacy.37 The defendants counter, inter alia,", "paragraph_id": "para_1971" }, { "text": "that (1) the plaintiffs failed to identify the specific part or", "paragraph_id": "para_1972" }, { "text": "parts of the press release that amounted to a disclosure of", "paragraph_id": "para_1973" }, { "text": "personal information, (2) the plaintiffs failed to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_1974" }, { "text": "authority to support the contention that the disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_1975" }, { "text": "37In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs assert that at least two types", "paragraph_id": "para_1976" }, { "text": "of privacy interests exist under fourteenth amendment jurisprudence:", "paragraph_id": "para_1977" }, { "text": "the interest in avoiding the disclosure of personal matters and the", "paragraph_id": "para_1978" }, { "text": "interest in maintaining independence in making certain decisions.", "paragraph_id": "para_1979" }, { "text": "See, e.g., Barry v. City of New York, 712 F.2d 1554, 1558 (2d Cir.),", "paragraph_id": "para_1980" }, { "text": "cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1017, 104 S. Ct. 548, 78 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1983),", "paragraph_id": "para_1981" }, { "text": "and cert. denied sub nom. Slevin v. City of New York, 464 U.S. 1017,", "paragraph_id": "para_1982" }, { "text": "104 S. Ct. 548, 78 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1983). They further contend that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1983" }, { "text": "trial court, in concluding that the amended complaint set forth only a", "paragraph_id": "para_1984" }, { "text": "claim of an invasion of the plaintiffs’ private business interests, mis-", "paragraph_id": "para_1985" }, { "text": "construed the pleading by interpreting it too narrowly. The plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_1986" }, { "text": "failed to conduct a proper analysis of this contention, and, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1987" }, { "text": "we decline to consider it on the basis of an inadequate brief. See, e.g.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1988" }, { "text": "Birch Groves Assn., Inc. v. Jordon, supra, 233 Conn. App. 500–501", "paragraph_id": "para_1989" }, { "text": "n.14; State v. Lamantia, 181 Conn. App. 648, 654 n.3, 187 A.3d 513", "paragraph_id": "para_1990" }, { "text": "(2018), aff’d, 336 Conn. 747, 250 A.3d 648 (2020).", "paragraph_id": "para_1991" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongof business matters and information amounted to a vio-", "paragraph_id": "para_1992" }, { "text": "lation of the constitutional right to privacy, (3) there is", "paragraph_id": "para_1993" }, { "text": "no constitutional right to be free from unwanted public-", "paragraph_id": "para_1994" }, { "text": "ity, and (4) the plaintiffs waived any right to privacy as", "paragraph_id": "para_1995" }, { "text": "part of the settlement agreement reached in the qui tam", "paragraph_id": "para_1996" }, { "text": "action. We agree with the trial court’s reasoning that no", "paragraph_id": "para_1997" }, { "text": "constitutional right to confidentiality in business mat-", "paragraph_id": "para_1998" }, { "text": "ters exists under these circumstances.", "paragraph_id": "para_1999" }, { "text": "We iterate that public officials are not liable under", "paragraph_id": "para_2000" }, { "text": "§ 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly estab-", "paragraph_id": "para_2001" }, { "text": "lished statutory or constitutional rights of which a rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_2002" }, { "text": "sonable person would have known. See, e.g., Eglise v.", "paragraph_id": "para_2003" }, { "text": "Culpin, Docket No. 99-7536, 2000 WL 232798, *1 (2d", "paragraph_id": "para_2004" }, { "text": "Cir. February 28, 2000) (decision without published", "paragraph_id": "para_2005" }, { "text": "opinion, 205 F.3d 1322 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Doe v.", "paragraph_id": "para_2006" }, { "text": "Marsh, 105 F.3d 106, 109 (2d Cir. 1997). The Second", "paragraph_id": "para_2007" }, { "text": "Circuit has held that an individual has a constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_2008" }, { "text": "right to privacy in personal information. Doe v. City of", "paragraph_id": "para_2009" }, { "text": "New York, 15 F.3d 264, 267, 269 (2d Cir. 1994) (medical", "paragraph_id": "para_2010" }, { "text": "information). “More precisely, this right to privacy can", "paragraph_id": "para_2011" }, { "text": "be characterized as a right to ‘confidentiality,’ to distin-", "paragraph_id": "para_2012" }, { "text": "guish it from the right to autonomy and independence", "paragraph_id": "para_2013" }, { "text": "in decision-making for personal matters . . . .” Id. This", "paragraph_id": "para_2014" }, { "text": "fundamental right, however, is not absolute. Hancock", "paragraph_id": "para_2015" }, { "text": "v. County of Rensselaer, 882 F.3d 58, 65 (2d Cir. 2018).", "paragraph_id": "para_2016" }, { "text": "Additionally, the Second Circuit has described the right", "paragraph_id": "para_2017" }, { "text": "to privacy as “one of the less easily delineated consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_2018" }, { "text": "tutional guarantees . . . .” Statharos v. New York City", "paragraph_id": "para_2019" }, { "text": "Taxi & Limousine Commission, 198 F.3d 317, 322 (2d", "paragraph_id": "para_2020" }, { "text": "Cir. 1999); see also Igneri v. Moore, 898 F.2d 870, 873", "paragraph_id": "para_2021" }, { "text": "(2d Cir. 1990). “Second Circuit law currently recognizes", "paragraph_id": "para_2022" }, { "text": "the right to privacy in one’s personal information in", "paragraph_id": "para_2023" }, { "text": "a limited set of factual circumstances involving one’s", "paragraph_id": "para_2024" }, { "text": "health and personal financial information.” (Emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_2025" }, { "text": "added.) Doe No. 1 v. Putnam County, 344 F. Supp. 3d", "paragraph_id": "para_2026" }, { "text": "518, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); see also Matson v. Board of", "paragraph_id": "para_2027" }, { "text": "Education, 631 F.3d 57, 66 (2d Cir. 2011) (constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_2028" }, { "text": "right to “ ‘privacy of certain medical conditions’ ” applies", "paragraph_id": "para_2029" }, { "text": "“only [w]ithin ‘narrow parameters’ ”); Bento v. Milford,", "paragraph_id": "para_2030" }, { "text": "213 F. Supp. 3d 346, 359 (D. Conn. 2016) (constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_2031" }, { "text": "Mohammadi v. Tongright to privacy encompasses medical information that", "paragraph_id": "para_2032" }, { "text": "is “ ‘excruciatingly private and intimate in nature,’ ”", "paragraph_id": "para_2033" }, { "text": "such as HIV diagnosis, but not family issues or other", "paragraph_id": "para_2034" }, { "text": "conditions such as fibromyalgia); see generally Paul v.", "paragraph_id": "para_2035" }, { "text": "Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712–13, 96 S. Ct. 1155, 47 L. Ed.", "paragraph_id": "para_2036" }, { "text": "2d 405 (1976) (no constitutional right to privacy that", "paragraph_id": "para_2037" }, { "text": "would prohibit state from publicizing official act such as", "paragraph_id": "para_2038" }, { "text": "arrest); Cassano v. Carb, 436 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir. 2006)", "paragraph_id": "para_2039" }, { "text": "(no constitutional right to privacy as to collection of", "paragraph_id": "para_2040" }, { "text": "Social Security numbers); Pennyfeather v. Tessler, 431", "paragraph_id": "para_2041" }, { "text": "F.3d 54, 55–56 (2d Cir. 2005) (right to privacy does not", "paragraph_id": "para_2042" }, { "text": "protect public employees from disclosure of information,", "paragraph_id": "para_2043" }, { "text": "such as name, address, and work schedule related to their", "paragraph_id": "para_2044" }, { "text": "employment); Doe v. City of New York, supra, 15 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_2045" }, { "text": "268 (no constitutionally protected privacy interest in", "paragraph_id": "para_2046" }, { "text": "matters of public record).", "paragraph_id": "para_2047" }, { "text": "The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence", "paragraph_id": "para_2048" }, { "text": "of a clearly established privacy right protected by the", "paragraph_id": "para_2049" }, { "text": "constitution as to their business matters and informa-", "paragraph_id": "para_2050" }, { "text": "tion. They have not provided any authority to support", "paragraph_id": "para_2051" }, { "text": "such a contention. See, e.g., Nunez v. Pachman, 578", "paragraph_id": "para_2052" }, { "text": "F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2009) (courts are reluctant to", "paragraph_id": "para_2053" }, { "text": "expand constitutional right to privacy, which shields", "paragraph_id": "para_2054" }, { "text": "from public scrutiny only information deeply rooted in", "paragraph_id": "para_2055" }, { "text": "notions of fundamental personal interests derived from", "paragraph_id": "para_2056" }, { "text": "constitution and is significantly narrower than right to", "paragraph_id": "para_2057" }, { "text": "privacy protected by state tort law). We iterate that “[a]", "paragraph_id": "para_2058" }, { "text": "public official is entitled to qualified immunity if . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_2059" }, { "text": "the plaintiff fails to make out a violation of a constitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_2060" }, { "text": "tional right . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_2061" }, { "text": "Palkimas v. Bella, 510 Fed. Appx. 64, 65 (2d Cir. 2013).", "paragraph_id": "para_2062" }, { "text": "The plaintiffs have not done so regarding their claim", "paragraph_id": "para_2063" }, { "text": "of a violation of privacy, and, therefore, the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_2064" }, { "text": "properly concluded that the defendants were entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_2065" }, { "text": "qualified immunity and the dismissal of count six of the", "paragraph_id": "para_2066" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ amended complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_2067" }, { "text": "The judgment is affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_2068" }, { "text": "In this opinion the other judges concurred.", "paragraph_id": "para_2069" } ], "word_count": 19586, "cites": [ "595 U.S. 952", "590 U.S. 904", "574 U.S. 978", "510 U.S. 510", "528 U.S. 929", "541 U.S. 988", "545 U.S. 1039", "590 U.S.\n904", "589 U.S. 1060", "572 U.S. 118", "463 U.S. 60", "538 U.S.\n906", "523 U.S. 833", "521 U.S. 702", "523 U.S. 842", "595 U.S. 922", "523 U.S. 851", "523 U.S. 855", "598 U.S. 1211", "464 U.S. 1017", "424 U.S. 693", "177 F.4th 156", "734\nF.3d 154", "60 F.3d 995", "383\nF.3d 34", "370 F.3d 322", "757\nF.2d 496", "386 F.3d 432", "89 F.4th 403", "11 F.4th 163", "11 F.4th 168", "383 F.3d 38", "939 F.3d\n72", "344 F.3d 292", "596 F.3d 77", "378 F.3d 1020", "344 F.3d\n302", "401 F.3d 75", "355 F.3d 206", "328 F.3d 84", "148 F.4th 71", "294 F.3d 453", "175 F.4th 397", "984 F.3d 1075", "64\nF.4th 425", "577 F.3d 415", "432 F.3d 98", "43\nF.4th 19", "712 F.2d 1554", "205 F.3d 1322", "105 F.3d 106", "15 F.3d 264", "882 F.3d 58", "198 F.3d 317", "898 F.2d 870", "631 F.3d 57", "436 F.3d 74", "431\nF.3d 54", "15 F.3d\n268", "578\nF.3d 228" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "75292879519cfe7c441d8fe9251ba361425acd6f1cb76e95c39ebfa5e540b876", "source_url": "https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP242/AP242.358.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T07:16:15.683+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "neighbors": [ { "id": "us:mdctspecapp-0284-24-2026-10-05", "name": "3919 NEH v. Salinas", "decided": "2026-10-05", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:mdctspecapp-0284-24-2026-10-05", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:mdctspecapp-0284-24-2026-10-05", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:mdctspecapp-0284-24-2026-10-05" }, { "id": "us:ill-132101-2026-09-24", "name": "Greenswag v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc.", "decided": "2026-09-24", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24" }, { "id": "us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-2537-2026-09-24", "name": "Durbal v. Association of American Medical Colleges", "decided": "2026-09-24", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-2537-2026-09-24", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-2537-2026-09-24", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-2537-2026-09-24" }, { "id": "us:ca2-25-76-2026-08-26", "name": "Waters v. Kory", "decided": "2026-08-26", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-76-2026-08-26", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-25-76-2026-08-26", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-25-76-2026-08-26" }, { "id": "us:dc-24-cv-0778-24-cv-0982-2026-08-20", "name": "Edwards & Jones v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB", "decided": "2026-08-20", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:dc-24-cv-0778-24-cv-0982-2026-08-20", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:dc-24-cv-0778-24-cv-0982-2026-08-20", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:dc-24-cv-0778-24-cv-0982-2026-08-20" }, { "id": "us:nc-86a23-2-2026-08-14", "name": "Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc.", "decided": "2026-08-14", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nc-86a23-2-2026-08-14", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:nc-86a23-2-2026-08-14", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:nc-86a23-2-2026-08-14" }, { "id": "us:ca11-24-13590-2026-08-04", "name": "Deltona Transformer Corporation v. The Noco Company", "decided": "2026-08-04", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-13590-2026-08-04", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-24-13590-2026-08-04", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-24-13590-2026-08-04" }, { "id": "us:ca8-24-3382-25-1428-2026-08-03", "name": "Dan Pennington v. BHP Billiton Petrol (Fayetteville)", "decided": "2026-08-03", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-24-3382-25-1428-2026-08-03", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-24-3382-25-1428-2026-08-03", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-24-3382-25-1428-2026-08-03" }, { "id": "us:ca8-25-3205-2026-07-31", "name": "United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation", "decided": "2026-07-31", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-3205-2026-07-31", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-3205-2026-07-31", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-3205-2026-07-31" }, { "id": "us:ca4-25-1745-2026-07-30", "name": "Vapor Technology Association v. McKinley Wooten, Jr.", "decided": "2026-07-30", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-1745-2026-07-30", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-25-1745-2026-07-30", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-25-1745-2026-07-30" } ], "verification": { "stored_sha256": "75292879519cfe7c441d8fe9251ba361425acd6f1cb76e95c39ebfa5e540b876", "recomputed_sha256": "75292879519cfe7c441d8fe9251ba361425acd6f1cb76e95c39ebfa5e540b876", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-11-03T11:21:42.312Z" }, "verification_scope": { "stored_hash_is_source_verification": false, "official_source_comparison": "not_performed", "legal_review": "not_assessed" }, "decision_object": { "schema_version": "1", "object_id": "decision:us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "judgment_class": "E", "operative_part": "not_in_register", "cites_count": 60, "word_count": 19586, "decision_url": null }, "agent_links": { "agent_root": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json", "agent_overview": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview" } }, "hash": "sha256:ca09c8b46ba8caea8e10de34cf1e4681b788260b373af8a43c396fdc5290a937", "version": "legal-2026-11-03", "expires": "2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T08:46:54", "content_hash": "sha256:ca09c8b46ba8caea8e10de34cf1e4681b788260b373af8a43c396fdc5290a937", "revalidate_after": "2026-11-03T12:21:45.011Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "_sweep_notice": { "mode": "citation", "reason": "corpus sweep without measurable return", "vendor": "Anthropic", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text", "full_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise", "attribution": "cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source" }, "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }