Opinion ID: 2640741
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Dismissed DeNardo's Abuse of Process Claim.

Text: The abuse of process tort comprises two elements: (1) an ulterior purpose and (2) a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. [12] The ulterior purpose usually takes the form of coercion to obtain a collateral advantage, not properly involved in the proceeding itself, such as the surrender of property or the payment of money, but the use of the process as a threat or a club. [13] In Kollodge v. State, [14] we emphasized that the second element of the tort contemplates some overt act done in addition to the initiating of the suit, [15] and noted that threatening suit, initiating suit, and requesting discovery did not qualify as overt acts even if done for an ulterior purpose. Similarly, we held in Meidinger v. Koniag Inc., [16] that actions taken in the regular course of litigation . . . cannot be a proper basis for an abuse of process claim. [17] DeNardo claims that the appellee's ulterior motive was retribution because DeNardo had sued Alaska Cleaners. DeNardo argues further that the appellees wanted to coerce DeNardo to abandon his cause of action while they also, allegedly, wanted to create a multiplicity of actions and appeals substantially increasing the costs and expenses of DeNardo's pursuit of his [r]ight of action. It is clearly incorrect to argue that appellees sought to have DeNardo's case dismissed in order to create more appeals. Additionally, DeNardo's claim is not sufficient to support any inference that the appellees were attempting anything other than the successful dismissal of a lawsuit, which is not an ulterior motive. For this reason alone, the superior court's dismissal of the claim was proper. DeNardo never asserts a clear willful act other than the filing of motions which were ruled upon favorably. The superior court did not err in holding that an action taken in the regular course of litigation without an ulterior motive, such as the defendants' filing of a motion to compel compliance with a court order, cannot serve as the basis for an abuse of process claim.