Richard Debrincat v. Stephen Fischer, 217 So. 3d 68

Richard and Jason Debrincat sued multiple defendants in 2007; Stephen Fischer was later added as a defendant in an amended complaint and then dropped.
Fischer sued the Debrincats for malicious prosecution in 2009, alleging they added him to the suit without probable cause and with malice.
The Debrincats moved for summary judgment invoking Florida’s litigation privilege, relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, which held the privilege bars malicious prosecution claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Debrincats; the Fourth District reversed, holding the litigation privilege cannot bar malicious prosecution claims, and certified conflict with Wolfe.
The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve the district split and expressly considered whether the litigation privilege bars a malicious prosecution claim based on adding a party to litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the litigation privilege bars a malicious prosecution claim based on adding a party to a civil suit	Fischer: privilege should not bar malicious prosecution because the tort requires causation in litigation and would be eviscerated if the privilege applied	Debrincats: litigation privilege affords absolute immunity for acts occurring in judicial proceedings, including joining parties (relying on Wolfe)	The litigation privilege does not bar malicious prosecution claims premised on adding a party; court approves Fischer and disapproves Wolfe to the extent inconsistent

DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) (recognizes absolute litigation privilege for acts during judicial proceedings but balances competing interests)
Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) (litigation privilege applies to acts occurring during judicial proceedings if related to the proceeding)
Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) (litigation privilege applies across causes of action)
Tatum Bros. Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. Watson, 109 So. 623 (Fla. 1926) (recognition of malicious prosecution as a cause of action in Florida)
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1994) (elements required to establish malicious prosecution)
Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding litigation privilege cannot bar malicious prosecution; certified conflict with Wolfe)
Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (held litigation privilege bars malicious prosecution; decision disapproved to extent inconsistent)
Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (district court recognizing litigation privilege does not bar malicious prosecution)
Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (same conclusion regarding privilege and malicious prosecution)