Opinion ID: 2516204
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: It Was Error to Deny Brown's Request to Amend His Complaint to Add a State Law Tort Claim.

Text: Brown requested leave on September 29, 1997 to amend his complaint to add a malicious prosecution claim against Chief Haken. [29] The search took place on February 8, 1995. The charges against Brown were dismissed on April 10, 1995. Since favorable termination of a proceeding alleged to have been maliciously brought is an element for any malicious prosecution claim, [30] Brown's malicious prosecution claim did not accrue until that date. The two-year statute of limitations for any malicious prosecution claims therefore expired on April 10, 1997. [31] Brown claimed that his proposed amendments related back to his timely original complaint, in accordance with Alaska Civil Rule 15(c). [32] The amendment would have added a new claim against a defendant, Chief Haken, named in the original complaint. To relate back, a new claim must arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence alleged in the original complaint. [33] In these circumstances, Rule 15(c) receives a liberal construction [34] and not the strict construction applied when a claimant seeks to add a new party. [35] A decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court. [36] The superior court framed the issue as whether Chief Haken had adequate notice of the new claim. The court reasoned that, for Chief Haken to have received notice, Brown's original complaint must have alleged facts satisfying all legal elements of a malicious prosecution claim. [37] The court determined that Brown's original complaint alleged that the proceedings against him were terminated in his favor and were brought without probable cause but did not allege facts indicating that the proceedings were brought with malice. The court therefore denied Brown's request. But in these circumstances Rule 15(c) focuses on the facts alleged in the original complaint, not on whether the defendant knew that the facts alleged satisfied the legal elements of the new claim. Rule 15(c) provides that [w]henever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. [38] We stated in Magestro v. State that a named party given notice of the facts of the underlying occurrence has been given all the notice that the statutes of limitation are intended to afford. [39] Accordingly, the only relevant question is whether the new claim involves the same transaction or occurrence alleged in the original complaint. Brown argues that his malicious prosecution claim was merely a new legal theory that fit into the facts originally pled. We agree. Brown's malicious prosecution claim arose from some of the same facts that his original complaint alleged, specifically the issuance of the criminal complaint and its subsequent dismissal. Brown's failure to allege malice with specificity does not mean that Chief Haken was not on notice of the general facts that gave rise to Brown's malicious prosecution claim. [40] We therefore reverse the denial of Brown's motion to amend his complaint to add a claim of malicious prosecution against Chief Haken.