Cahill Secures Dismissal of Claims Against Sanctuary for Families
Date: 01/10/25
Cahill secured complete dismissal of all claims brought against its client, Sanctuary for Families (Sanctuary), in Khan v. Jewish Women Intl., et al.
The plaintiff, a former student at Yale University who was expelled for violating its sexual misconduct policy, asserted defamation and related claims against Sanctuary arising from statements made by Sanctuary and other non-profits describing the plaintiff as a “rapist” in a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in a separate litigation brought by the same plaintiff against Yale for improperly expelling him and brought against the alleged victim for defamation for accusing him of rape (Khan v. Yale University). The plaintiff’s claims against Sanctuary hinged on just 37 words from the 4,000 word legal brief.
Cahill’s team, led by partners Joel Kurtzberg, David Januszewski, and Landis Best; counsel Lauren Perlgut; and associates Rania AlRashoodi, Chana Tauber, and Justine Woods, filed a special motion to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law. First, Cahill argued that the proposed amicus brief was the exercise of Sanctuary’s constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government on matters of public concern. Second, Cahill argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by Connecticut’s litigation privilege, which provided absolute immunity for the statements in the proposed amicus brief, and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which separately protected Sanctuary’s participation in the judicial process.
The Superior Court of Connecticut granted the special motion. In a matter of first impression, the court ruled that the litigation privilege applies to amicus briefs, emphasizing their essential role in judicial proceedings and their frequent influence on judicial decision-making. The court further held that the challenged statements in the proposed amicus brief were pertinent to the issues in the underlying Khan v. Yale University litigation and were thus protected by the litigation privilege. Finally, the court reaffirmed the constitutionality of Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute.
To read more about the case, click here.