David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher, A16-850

Background

Pemrick, a MINNCOR employee, was accused by co-worker Bucher of being shoved on Feb. 3–4, 2015; Bucher obtained an ex parte harassment restraining order (HRO) and, after a contested hearing, the court issued a final HRO finding Pemrick physically assaulted Bucher. Pemrick did not appeal.
MINNCOR later terminated Pemrick’s employment. Surveillance video existed that Pemrick contended proved no assault, but the video was not offered into evidence at the HRO hearing.
Pemrick sued in district court asserting defamation (against Bucher and MINNCOR), fraud and negligent misrepresentation (against Bucher or MINNCOR), and negligence (against MINNCOR), alleging Bucher’s statements were false and that MINNCOR wrongfully relied on them when firing him.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e), arguing absolute privilege and preclusion (res judicata and collateral estoppel); the district court dismissed, finding collateral estoppel barred relitigation of whether the assault occurred.
On appeal, Pemrick sought production of the surveillance video and challenged exclusion of an affidavit; the court declined to expand the appellate record or compel production and upheld exclusion of the affidavit under Rule 12.02(e).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of the core issue (whether Pemrick assaulted Bucher), which in turn barred all of Pemrick’s claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court should compel production of MINNCOR surveillance video	Pemrick: compel production because it would show no assault	MINNCOR: production not required on appeal; appellate record limited to district-court filings	Denied — appellate court will not expand the record or compel production on appeal
Whether the district court erred by excluding Pemrick’s affidavit	Pemrick: affidavit improperly disregarded; was material evidence	Defendants: dismissal under Rule 12.02(e) permits excluding matters outside the pleadings	Denied — exclusion proper under Rule 12.02(e); court took judicial notice of HRO file
Whether Pemrick’s claims state legally sufficient claims (defamation, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence)	Pemrick: complaint alleges false statements, reliance, damages, and MINNCOR’s failure to verify evidence	Defendants: claims barred by absolute privilege and by preclusion doctrines because HRO adjudicated the assault issue	Held — claims are barred because collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of whether assault occurred; thus claims fail
Whether collateral estoppel applies despite different burdens of proof between HRO and civil proceedings	Pemrick: different burden and procedures mean issue shouldn’t be precluded	Defendants: HRO involved contested hearing, preponderance standard applied, Pemrick had full opportunity to be heard	Held — collateral estoppel applies: same issue, final judgment, same party, full and fair opportunity; preponderance standard used in HRO

Key Cases Cited

N. States Power Co. v. Minn. Metro. Council, 684 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2004) (district court may consider documents referenced in the complaint without converting to summary judgment)
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 2008) (standard for reviewing dismissal under Rule 12.02(e))
Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. 2014) (appellate review is de novo whether complaint states legally sufficient claim)
Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc., 728 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 2007) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised earlier)
Barth v. Stenwick, 761 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. App. 2009) (elements for collateral estoppel)
Graham v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 472 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 1991) (collateral estoppel can bar defamation claims when prior proceeding found statements true)
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. 1980) (truth is a defense to defamation)
Williams v. Smith, 820 N.W.2d 807 (Minn. 2012) (elements of negligent-misrepresentation claim)
Engler v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 706 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 2005) (elements of negligence claim)