Litigation Privilege and Stringent Standards for Post-Judgment Tort Claims: NIED, Malicious Prosecution, and Abuse of Process in David Griffith v. Hemphill

Litigation Privilege and Stringent Standards for Post-Judgment Tort Claims: NIED, Malicious Prosecution, and Abuse of Process in David Griffith v. Hemphill

Introduction

In David Griffith v. Roger Hemphill, Donald Davis, and JDO Law, P.C. (Supreme Court of Alaska, April 11, 2025), the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the superior court’s dismissal of landlord David Griffith’s second lawsuit against his former commercial tenants and their counsel. After losing a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action in which the tenants counterclaimed for damages, Griffith sued them (and their lawyers) alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The superior court took judicial notice of the prior proceedings, declined to convert the defendants’ Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a summary judgment motion, and dismissed all three tort claims for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed, setting out important rules on judicial notice, the privilege shielding litigation conduct from NIED liability, the requirement of favorable termination for malicious prosecution, and the necessity of an “ulterior purpose” for abuse of process.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Alaska held:

  • Judicial Notice & Pleadings: The superior court properly took judicial notice of the prior appellate decision (Griffith v. Hemphill, 521 P.3d 584 (Alaska 2022)) without converting the dismissal motion into one for summary judgment. The existence and outcomes of prior proceedings are facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” under Alaska Rule of Evidence 201(b), and the court gave Griffith fair notice and an opportunity to respond.
  • NIED Claim: The negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was barred by the absolute litigation privilege. Statements and claims made in the course of judicial proceedings cannot give rise to NIED liability (Meidinger v. Koniag, Inc., 31 P.3d 77 (Alaska 2001)).
  • Malicious Prosecution Claim: Griffith failed to plead favorable termination of the prior litigation in his favor. Under prevailing Alaska and persuasive California precedents, a malicious prosecution plaintiff must show that the entire prior action terminated favorably to him. Because the tenants prevailed on some counterclaims and the original eviction action, the requirement was not met.
  • Abuse of Process Claim: The complaint did not allege an ulterior purpose independent of the normal aims of litigation. Merely alleging delay, discovery tactics, or strategic motions—acts “proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding”—cannot sustain an abuse of process claim (Greywolf v. Carroll, 151 P.3d 1234 (Alaska 2007)).

The court affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing all three claims with leave to amend, and ultimately dismissed the action when no viable amendment emerged.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • Judicial Notice: Alaska Rule of Evidence 201(b); Pedersen v. Blythe, 292 P.3d 182 (Alaska 2012); F.T. v. State, 862 P.2d 857 (Alaska 1993).
  • Privilege for Litigation Conduct: Meidinger v. Koniag, Inc., 31 P.3d 77 (Alaska 2001) (IIED privilege applied to suit-related conduct); Kallstrom v. United States, 43 P.3d 162 (Alaska 2002) (distinguishing IIED and NIED).
  • Malicious Prosecution Elements: Zamarello v. Yale, 514 P.2d 228 (Alaska 1973); Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 501 (Cal. App. 2021).
  • Counterclaims—Compulsory vs. Separable: Alaska R. Civ. P. 13(a); Baker v. Duffus, 441 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2019) (compulsory counterclaims share evidentiary basis and outcome).
  • Abuse of Process Doctrine: PROSSER & KEETON, Torts § 121 (5th ed. 1984); Cornelison v. TIG Ins., 376 P.3d 1255 (Alaska 2016); Greywolf v. Carroll, 151 P.3d 1234 (Alaska 2007).

Legal Reasoning

1. Judicial Notice Without Conversion: When a 12(b)(6) motion risks relying on matters outside the pleadings, it ordinarily converts to a Rule 56 motion. But “strict judicial notice”—the fact of prior judicial proceedings and their outcomes—may be taken without summary judgment conversion so long as opponents get fair notice.

2. Litigation Privilege Bars NIED: Alaska courts treat lawsuit filings, pleadings, and statements in judicial proceedings as absolutely privileged. Allowing NIED claims based on such conduct would conflict with the policy of unfettered access to courts.

3. Complete Favorable Termination Required: A malicious prosecution plaintiff must show the prior action ended favorably in his entirety. Because the tenants prevailed on some issues—holding over rights and damage counterclaims—the necessary favorable termination element failed.

4. Ulterior Purpose Essential for Abuse of Process: Abuse of process protects against misuse of legal process for collateral objectives—extortion, coercion, or economic leverage unrelated to the merits. Strategic litigation maneuvers within the scope of adjudicative process—even if motivated by delay or spite—do not suffice.

Impact

This decision clarifies four key issues for Alaska practitioners:

  • Courts may judicially notice the existence and outcome of prior litigation without converting a dismissal motion into summary judgment, provided fair notice is given.
  • The absolute litigation privilege extends to negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, precluding suits based on statements or strategy in the course of litigation.
  • Plaintiffs alleging malicious prosecution must demonstrate that every aspect of the prior suit terminated in their favor, including compulsory counterclaims.
  • Abuse of process actions require factual allegations of an “ulterior purpose” independent of legitimate litigation ends—mere delay or tactical discovery will not suffice.

Future litigants will face high hurdles when pursuing tort claims based on conduct in pending or concluded litigation. The decision promotes finality and shields genuine litigation strategy from collateral tort exposure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Judicial Notice: A court’s formal acceptance of certain facts (e.g., prior judgments) without requiring proof, because they are publicly recorded and indisputable.
  • Absolute Litigation Privilege: A rule that statements and actions directly connected to judicial proceedings cannot form the basis of defamation or emotional distress claims.
  • Favorable Termination: In malicious prosecution, the original case must end in the plaintiff’s clear victory on every claim; partial wins are insufficient.
  • Ulterior Purpose: In abuse of process, the defendant must use legal procedure to achieve a collateral goal (e.g., extortion), not merely to win the case.
  • Compulsory Counterclaims: Counterclaims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim and must be litigated together or be lost forever.

Conclusion

David Griffith v. Hemphill firmly underscores the strength of the litigation privilege and enforces rigorous standards for tort claims predicated on judicial process. By upholding the superior court’s procedures and its merits dismissal, the Alaska Supreme Court has affirmed that:

  • Court process and pleadings enjoy near-absolute protection against NIED suits.
  • A malicious prosecution plaintiff must secure a wholly favorable outcome in the prior case, inclusive of every compulsory claim.
  • An abuse of process plaintiff must allege a misuse of procedure for an extrajudicial purpose beyond the process’s legitimate design.

This precedent will guide Alaska practitioners in evaluating the viability of post-judgment tort claims and reinforce the finality and integrity of judicial proceedings.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court Of The State Of Alaska

Comments