Stephen Fischer v. Richard Debrincat and Jason Debrincat
169 So. 3d 1204
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Appellees (Richard and Jason Debrincat) sued multiple parties in a civil action and later added Stephen Fischer as a defendant for defamation, tortious interference, and conspiracy; Fischer was later dropped from that suit.
- Fischer then sued the Debrincats for malicious prosecution, alleging they caused the prior civil proceeding to be brought against him without probable cause and with malice.
- The Debrincats pleaded the litigation privilege as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment, arguing that joining Fischer in the underlying civil suit was protected by absolute litigation privilege.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Debrincats and entered final judgment against Fischer.
- On appeal the Fourth District considered whether Florida’s litigation privilege bars a malicious prosecution claim that rests on the commencement or continuation of a judicial proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the litigation privilege bars a malicious prosecution claim | Fischer: malicious prosecution targets the wrongful commencement/continuation of litigation itself and thus should not be barred by an absolute privilege | Debrincats: filing and prosecuting the underlying complaint are acts during a judicial proceeding and therefore absolutely privileged under Levin/Echevarria | The privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution claim; summary judgment reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) (extended absolute litigation privilege to acts occurring during judicial proceedings so long as they relate to the proceeding)
- Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) (confirmed broad application of litigation privilege across causes of action)
- Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (held litigation privilege bars malicious prosecution for acts of filing/prosecuting a civil complaint)
- Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1994) (sets elements of malicious prosecution)
- Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (recognized malicious prosecution as the primary private remedy for misuse of judicial process and held privilege did not bar such claims)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal. 3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (California Supreme Court: absolute litigation privilege does not apply to malicious prosecution)