What is a claim for abuse of process?

Useful Rulings on Abuse of Process

Recent Rulings on Abuse of Process

JIN HONG VS MICHELLE KIM, ET AL.

of Process Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligence Cal.

  • Hearing

GEORGE SANTOPIETRO VS JAMES HARDEN, ET AL.

On the same day, Wiseman and Solimar (“Cross-Complainants”) also filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC1”) against Santopietro, alleging two causes of action: Abuse of Process in Violation of B&P Code section 6128 Return of Deposit with Statutory Damages On July 20, 2020, this Court granted Santopietro’s Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) the Cross-Complaint.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KARL PERMAN, ET AL. VS YULIA GAYEVSKA, ET AL.

Because this is the only allegation that appears to support the abuse of process COA, Cross-Defendants arguments again appear to misconstrue the allegations made in the second COA. Cross-Defendants focus their argument on the filing of the underlying Complaint and the filing of the Civil Harassment proceeding as the grounds for the abuse of process claim. However, as stated above, these two allegations are not proper grounds to support abuse of process.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LAURA SHAPIRO ET AL VS MORAD BEN NEMAN ET AL

The TAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, (5) forcible detainer, (6) failure to return security deposits, (9) covenant of peaceful and quiet enjoyment, (10) constructive eviction, (11) retaliatory eviction, (12) abuse of process and frivolous filings, (13) breach of warranty of suitability, (14) illegal collection of rent, (15) violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code – Relocation Benefits, (16) breach of written contract, (17) breach of oral contract, (18

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CAL PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION & REMODEL INC VS TANNER

There is no indication that the changes to the SAC were made in bad faith or that plaintiff was involved in an abuse of process. See Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 751 ("The doctrine is not intended to prevent honest complainants from correcting erroneous allegations or to prevent the correction of ambiguous facts."). Defendant must file and serve an answer to the SAC by November 30, 2020. _________________________ *The case was later ordered depublished.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GARDEN GATE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CATHERINE WELLS

Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1063 (applying litigation privilege to abuse of process claim and both communicative and noncommunicative acts necessarily related to communicative conduct); Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 322 As discussed in connection with the first step, Defendant establishes that the entire complaint arises from her filing of the derivative complaint and her disclosure of documents in response to a deposition subpoena or in anticipation of or in connection with pending litigation.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GHAEEM VS NAMVAR

The essential elements of an abuse of process claim (FAC count 6) are: (1) ulterior purpose in commencing a process; and (2) willful act in an unauthorized use of the process. See Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057; see also Oren Royal Oaks Venture & Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1169 ("the mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit - even for an improper purpose - is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action"). F.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GHAEEM VS NAMVAR

The essential elements of an abuse of process claim (FAC count 6) are: (1) ulterior purpose in commencing a process; and (2) willful act in an unauthorized use of the process. See Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057; see also Oren Royal Oaks Venture & Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1169 ("the mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit - even for an improper purpose - is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action"). F.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action – Abuse of Process Abuse of Process requires: (1) an ulterior purpose in commencing a process; and (2) a willful act in an unauthorized use of the process. (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057.) “The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit - even for an improper purpose - is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.” (JSJ Ltd. Partnership v. Mehrban (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1512, 1523.)

  • Hearing

GRADY THOMAS VS LEIDOS, INC., ET AL.

The sham pleading doctrine is not intended to prevent honest complainants from correcting erroneous allegations or to prevent correction of ambiguous facts, as it is intended to enable courts to prevent an abuse of process. (Id. at 1390–1391.) The complaint alleged that McGinnis “followed” Plaintiff to his new desk. (Compl., ¶ 14(q).) The FAC now alleges that McGinnis “aggressively grabbed” and “dragged” Thomas to the new desk. (FAC, ¶ 14(q).) These facts blatantly contradict the previously alleged facts.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GEORGE SANTOPIETRO VS JAMES HARDEN, ET AL.

On the same day, Wiseman and Solimar (“Cross-Complainants”) also filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC1”) against Santopietro, alleging two causes of action: Abuse of Process in Violation of B&P Code section 6128 Return of Deposit with Statutory Damages On July 20, 2020, this Court granted Santopietro’s Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) the Cross-Complaint. On the same day, this Court granted Solimar’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Second Cause of Action and denied the Motion as to the remainder.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STROJNIK V. SASHI GROUP LLC, ET AL.

Additionally, moving defendants also argue that Plaintiff is not actually disabled, and his filing of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) without a disability was the basis for his disbarment from the Arizona State Bar, and for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s conclusions that his ADA lawsuits were tantamount to an abuse of process and that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.1 Moving defendants request judicial notice of 20 other complaints filed

  • Hearing

FIRST SECURE EQUITY LLC, ET AL. VS 2304 SAWTELLE LLC, ET AL.

of process.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

FIRST SECURE EQUITY LLC, ET AL. VS 2304 SAWTELLE LLC, ET AL.

of process.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOERG JOHN FENT VS LISA NAKAMURA, ET AL.

Instead, it is intended to enable courts [] to prevent an abuse of process.” (Ibid. [citations and quotations omitted].) Plaintiff has alleged the following in the complaint filed on September 24, 2018 in case number BC723148. On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff suffered injuries after Plaintiff’s bicycle’s tire got caught in a drainage grate on public property that three public entities owned, maintained, and controlled. (RJN, Exh. E, ¶¶ 2-4, 8-11.)

  • Hearing

MAX HENNARD VS ASIAN PACIFIC HEALTH CARE VENTURE INC ET AL

The purpose of the doctrine is to enable the courts to prevent an abuse of process. [Citation.] The doctrine is not intended to prevent honest complainants from correcting erroneous allegations or to prevent the correction of ambiguous facts.” (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 751.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DAD V. SCHWARTZ

Abuse of Process (Eighteenth Cause of Action) There are two main elements of a cause of action for abuse of process: “first, an ulterior purpose, and second, a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” (Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1168.)

  • Hearing

SANTA ROSA ALL CITY GIRLS SOFTBALL LEAVE V. TRILLO

Trillo filed the motion in response to SRACGSL’s eighth cause of action for malicious prosecution and ninth cause of action for abuse of process. The motion was denied based upon the Illegal Conduct Exception to the anti-SLAPP statute; illegal behavior is not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. This court found that SRACGSL “proffered evidence in the form of declarations that Mr.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

SHELDON WIDUCH VS ANCHETA HOLDINGS LLC,, ET AL.

Tenth Cause of Action (Abuse of Process) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s tenth cause of action for abuse of process fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them. (CCP § 430.10(e).) The “essence” of the tort of abuse of process is “misuse of the power of the court; it is an act done in the name of the court and under its authority for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA VS IBIERE SECK, ESQ.

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint against Defendants Ibiere Seck and Seck Law, P.C. for (1) declaratory relief; and (2) abuse of process.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITY OF MONROVIA VS PAULINE WHITE, ET AL

Defendant White has filed a cross-complaint against the City seeking indemnity, and alleging various causes of action, including for abuse of process, trespass, and violation of her Fourth Amendment and privacy rights. The City prevailed on a special motion to strike White’s cross-complaint under CCP § 425.16, and successfully opposed White’s subsequent anti-SLAPP motion against the City’s complaint.

  • Hearing

HUYNH VS. LOCKHART

Miller (1983) 140 CA3d 636, 643—where injunction erroneously issued without bond, defendant's only remedy was suit for abuse of process or malicious prosecution]. The purpose of the bond is to cover any damages to the defendant caused by issuance of the injunction, if it is finally determined that plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction. [CCP § 529; see Top Cat Productions, Inc. v. Michael's Los Feliz (2002) 102 CA4th 474, 478—purpose is to afford compensation to party wrongly enjoined or restrained].

  • Hearing

BRUCE SAUNDERS VS STEVEN L. CORMIER, ET AL.

A cross-complaint is not required, and in fact may constitute an abuse of process. Cross-Complainants may proceed under judgment enforcement scheme provided under Code of Civil Procedure section 699.010, et seq. The demurer is therefore sustained without leave to amend. The parties are ordered to submit a notice of related cases to Department 47. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.300(a).) Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DON BURKHOLDER VS. MATTHEW D. GIRARDI...ET. AL.

On March 29, 2017, defendants filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of habitability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. A trial was held over several days in January and February 2020. On June 8, 2020, a statement of decision was filed and a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $22,594.06 and interest in the amount of $7,750.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action – Abuse of Process Abuse of Process requires: (1) an ulterior purpose in commencing a process; and (2) a willful act in an unauthorized use of the process. (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057.) “The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit - even for an improper purpose - is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.” (JSJ Ltd. Partnership v. Mehrban (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1512, 1523.)

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.