Holkesvig v. Welte
2011 ND 161
N.D.2011Background
- Holkesvig appealed a district court dismissal of his malicious prosecution action against Welte, Larson, and Smith, and sought costs and attorney fees.
- Holkesvig pleaded guilty to the stalking charge underlying the asserted malicious prosecution claim; the related disorderly conduct restraining order charge was dismissed as part of a plea deal.
- The district court granted summary judgment based on absolute prosecutorial and witness immunity, qualified immunity, and judicial estoppel due to the guilty plea and related pleadings.
- The court held the malicious prosecution claim could not prevail because the criminal proceedings did not terminate in Holkesvig's favor, given the guilty plea and plea bargain.
- Post-judgment, the court awarded $1,000 in Rule 11(b) sanctions and $1,512.41 in costs/disbursements to the defendants.
- Holkesvig challenges both the summary judgment ruling and the costs/fees sanctions on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper. | Holkesvig argues genuine issues exist on malice and termination in his favor. | Welte/Larson/Smith contend immunity and lack of favorable termination foreclose liability. | Yes; termination in Holkesvig's favor failed, supporting summary judgment. |
| Whether termination in Holkesvig's favor occurred. | Holkesvig asserts dismissal of charges in plea failed to negate favorable termination. | Defendants assert plea and plea bargain cannot yield favorable termination for malicious prosecution. | No; guilty plea and plea bargain do not constitute favorable termination. |
| Whether judicial estoppel precluded the claims. | Holkesvig argues no estoppel applicable to his pleadings. | Defendants rely on Holkesvig's guilty plea and inconsistent positions. | Unnecessary to decide; district court already barred the action on termination grounds. |
| Whether the costs and disbursements award was proper. | Holkesvig challenges the amount as excessive or improper. | Prevailing defendants are entitled to costs and disbursements. | Yes; court did not abuse discretion in awarding costs/disbursements. |
| Whether Rule 11(b) sanctions were appropriate. | Holkesvig contends sanctions are unwarranted or excessive. | Court found post-judgment filings lacked proper purpose and sanctioned accordingly. | Yes; sanctions for improper post-judgment conduct were supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kummer v. City of Fargo, 516 N.W.2d 294 (N.D.1994) (elements of malicious prosecution; favorable termination required)
- Richmond v. Haney, 480 N.W.2d 751 (N.D.1992) (malicious prosecution elements; termination in plaintiff's favor necessary)
- Land v. Hill, 644 P.2d 43 (Colo.Ct.App.1981) (guilty plea precludes malicious prosecution recovery; favorable termination rule)
- Cox v. Williams, 593 N.W.2d 173 (Mich.App.1999) (favorable termination not met when charges dismissed by plea bargain)
- Alt v. Parker, 435 S.E.2d 773 (N.C.App.1993) (plea bargain dismissals do not sustain malicious prosecution claims)
- Neff v. Neff, 247 P.3d 380 (Utah, 2011) (favorable termination requirement; plea-related dismissals foreclose action)
- Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185 (2d Cir.1980) (defendant may not rely on guilty plea to support civil action for malicious prosecution)
- Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181 (3d Cir.2009) (favorable termination element; compromise/withdrawal not sufficient)