Fredin v. Kreil

Background

Brock Fredin, representing himself, sued Jamie Kreil after Kreil published a 2017 Facebook post accusing him of rape and later submitted an affidavit repeating the accusation in earlier litigation. Fredin alleged that the accusation was false and defamatory. He also alleged that Kreil conspired with another person to republish the post, and that filing the affidavit constituted abuse of process and fraud. He asserted intentional infliction of emotional distress based on both the Facebook post and the affidavit.

Kreil moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. She argued that the claims based on the Facebook post were barred by the statute of limitations and that the claims based on the affidavit were barred by the absolute litigation privilege.

Facebook-post claims

The court held that Minnesota’s two-year statute of limitations applied to Fredin’s defamation, conspiracy-to-defame, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims based on the Facebook post. The complaint alleged that Kreil published the post on February 22, 2017, and Fredin did not file this action until September 10, 2020.

Fredin argued that the deadline should be extended because he did not discover Kreil’s identity until she filed the affidavit. The court rejected that argument, finding that Fredin’s own discovery requests in earlier litigation referred to Kreil by name. The court also found that Fredin had not plausibly alleged fraudulent concealment with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), which requires detailed allegations about the who, what, when, where, and how of an alleged fraud. The court therefore held that the claims based on the Facebook post were time-barred.

Affidavit-related claims

The court held that the remaining claims based on Kreil’s affidavit were barred by Minnesota’s absolute litigation privilege. That privilege protects statements made by a witness during a judicial or similar proceeding when the statements are relevant to the proceeding, even if the statements are allegedly false or malicious.

The court applied the privilege to Fredin’s defamation and conspiracy claims. It also applied the privilege to his abuse-of-process, fraud, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims because, as pleaded, the alleged injury arose from the allegedly defamatory statement in the affidavit. The court additionally noted that Fredin’s opposition did not address Kreil’s privilege argument, which independently supported granting the motion.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Kreil’s Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSED the action WITH PREJUDICE. Judge Susan Richard Nelson directed that judgment be entered accordingly.