Day on Torts

Supreme Court addresses standard for favorable termination in a malicious prosecution claim based on a criminal case.

In a malicious prosecution case where the underlying case was criminal rather than civil, a plaintiff “can pursue a claim for malicious prosecution only if an objective examination, limited to the documents disposing of the proceeding or the applicable procedural rules, indicates the termination of the underlying criminal proceeding reflects on the merits of the case and was due to the innocence of the accused.”

In Mynatt v. National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 39, — S.W.3d —, No. M2020-01285-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 5, 2023), plaintiff filed a malicious prosecution claim based on an underlying criminal case. Plaintiff alleged that after he criticized defendant union, defendant accused him of misusing union funds and caused him to be charged with two state felonies. In the criminal case, the prosecutor retired the charges against plaintiff for one year and never revived them, such that the charges were formally dismissed when the year passed.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim, arguing that “plaintiff could not show that the retirement and dismissal constituted a favorable termination on the merits, which is an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim.” The trial court agreed and dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals reversed dismissal, ruling that “there are outcomes other than acquittal following trial that can constitute a favorable termination and it is plausible that the charges were dismissed due to a lack of evidence.” (internal citation omitted). In this opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court was correct to dismiss the case.

Dismissal based on statute of limitations affirmed; court relied on judicial notice of court file

Where the trial court took judicial notice of items from the court case underlying a tort action for invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, it did not convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the claims based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.

In Doe v. Rosdeutscher, No. M2022-00834-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 27, 2023), plaintiff had filed an underlying HCLA suit. Plaintiff eventually took a voluntary nonsuit in that case, and following a motion by defendants in that case, the trial court assessed Rule 37 and Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff then filed this action against the defendants and the defendants’ attorneys from the previous HCLA case. In this case, plaintiff asserted claims for invasion of privacy, abuse of process, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract based on the allegation that defendants “filed Plaintiff’s medical records in the healthcare liability action which included nude photographs of Plaintiff and details about her sexual and mental health history[]” Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. The trial court also assessed damages against plaintiff and Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff’s attorney. On appeal, these rulings were affirmed.

Recent Articles: