Reenstierna v. Currier
873 F.3d 359
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Reenstierna, a real estate appraiser, was the subject of a grievance alleging he practiced in New Hampshire without a valid license; the Board appointed a complaint officer who retained Currier to review Reenstierna’s Cumberland Farms appraisal.
- Currier, a competing appraiser with prior work for Cumberland Farms, authored a report criticizing Reenstierna’s appraisal and noting an alleged licensing issue.
- The Board initially disciplined Reenstierna based in part on Currier’s report, but later stayed sanctions and ultimately dismissed the complaint on reconsideration.
- Reenstierna sued Currier in federal court (diversity) asserting defamation, violation of New Hampshire’s Consumer Protection Act, and tortious interference, alleging Currier’s report contained false, biased statements.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Currier based on New Hampshire’s absolute witness-immunity doctrine as applied to pre-hearing statements; Reenstierna appealed.
- The First Circuit affirmed, holding Provencher controls and that Currier’s investigatory report was shielded because litigation/adjudication was contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration when the report was prepared.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Hampshire’s absolute witness-immunity protects Currier’s report to an administrative board | Reenstierna: Report is investigatory misconduct, not protected; claims arise under state tort law and report is actionable | Currier: Provencher extends absolute immunity to pre-hearing communications related to contemplated proceedings | Held: Yes—Provencher controls; the report is within absolute witness-immunity scope and cannot be used to establish liability |
| Whether Provencher or Frost controls the immunity question | Reenstierna: Frost (qualified/official immunity context) should limit immunity here; Frost treats investigators differently | Currier: Provencher directly governs pre-hearing appraiser reports; Frost addressed §1983/qualified immunity and is not controlling for state tort claims | Held: Provencher governs state tort claims involving pre-hearing communications; Frost (qualified immunity) is inapposite here |
| Whether litigation was "contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration" when Currier wrote the report | Reenstierna: Currier’s report preceded the Board’s decision to hold a hearing and actually prompted the hearing, so litigation was not "seriously considered" at the time | Currier: Board regulations require investigation and appraisal review as part of a process that contemplates possible adjudication; therefore a proceeding was seriously considered | Held: The tribunal foreseen adjudicative steps and statutory/regulatory framework made a proceeding more than a mere possibility—Provencher’s "serious consideration" test is satisfied |
| Whether the federal court should certify the immunity question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court | Reenstierna: Question of state law nuance warrants certification for definitive guidance | Currier: Provencher is controlling precedent; federal court must apply existing state law | Held: No certification; the court applied existing New Hampshire precedent (Provencher) and declined to reformulate state law |
Key Cases Cited
- Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Assocs., 711 A.2d 251 (N.H. 1998) (New Hampshire adopts Restatement rule extending absolute witness-immunity to pre‑litigation communications when litigation is seriously contemplated)
- Pickering v. Frink, 461 A.2d 117 (N.H. 1983) (statements in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged)
- McGranahan v. Dahar, 408 A.2d 121 (N.H. 1979) (absolute privilege immunizes witnesses without inquiry into good faith)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1983) (rationale for absolute immunity to encourage full disclosure in judicial proceedings)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (policy basis for witness/prosecutorial immunities to protect truthful testimony)
- Frost v. Delaney, 128 A.3d 663 (N.H. 2015) (analyzed qualified/official immunity in §1983 context; not controlling for state-law witness immunity analysis)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (absolute prosecutorial immunity does not cover purely investigative acts)