accord Gilbert v. Ince, 1999 UT 65, 119, 981 P.2d 841 (acknowledging the Restatement definition of malicious prosecution of criminal actions). 5 . Because we decide this issue under rule 12(b)(6) we need not consider NCR's argument that the claim was barred under the Workers' Compensation Act. See Olsen v. Chase, 2011 UT App 181, ¶ 19, 270 P.3d 538 ("While we possess the authority to affirm on alternative grounds, 'we are not obligated to exercise this authority.' " (quoting O'Connor v. Burningham, 2007 UT 58, 123, 165 P.3d 1214). 6 . Tomlinson's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also fails because he has not alleged that he actually suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of NCR's conduct. Compare Schuurman v. Shingleton, 2001 UT 52, 115, 25, 26 P.3d 227 (<HOLDING>), with Walter v. Stewart, 2003 UT App 86, 129,
holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute holding that claims of a destroyed marriage failing to seek treatment for an eating disorder and depression and the need for future counseling services were insufficient to maintain a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress