What is a claim for abuse of process?

Useful Rulings on Abuse of Process

Recent Rulings on Abuse of Process

DAN SAXON PALMER, JR. VS GEOFF PALMER, 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.) Hence, the doctrine “cannot be mechanically applied.” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Ward (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 678, 690.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

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

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DISCOVER BANK VS RANDALL STEVENS

On August 13, 2019, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint for fraud, abuse of process, equitable comparative indemnity, equitable implied indemnity, total equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief against Plaintiff. On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Demurrer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID ELISHKOV VS THE SMEE TRUST, ET AL.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants asserting various causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quiet enjoyment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and declaratory relief. Defendants filed an unlawful detainer case against Plaintiff on December 30, 2019 (19VECV01843). In that case, Defendant filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff involving the same commercial property in Canoga Park.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNNY GALLO VS SARA GHIRUM ET AL

As to Defendant Sara Ghirum, Plaintiff alleged conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. Defendants Gaineasy, LLC and Vince Nguyen move for attorney’s fees. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Gaineasy, LLC and Vince Nguyen’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED as untimely. DISCUSSION: Motion for Attorney’s Fees Defendants move for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal in the amount of $27,962.50.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

JOHNNY GALLO VS SARA GHIRUM ET AL

As to Defendant Sara Ghirum, Plaintiff alleged conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. Defendants Gaineasy, LLC and Vince Nguyen move for attorney’s fees. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Gaineasy, LLC and Vince Nguyen’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED as untimely. DISCUSSION: Motion for Attorney’s Fees Defendants move for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal in the amount of $27,962.50.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

JOHNNY GALLO VS SARA GHIRUM ET AL

As to Defendant Sara Ghirum, Plaintiff alleged conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. Defendants Gaineasy, LLC and Vince Nguyen move for attorney’s fees. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Gaineasy, LLC and Vince Nguyen’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED as untimely. DISCUSSION: Motion for Attorney’s Fees Defendants move for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal in the amount of $27,962.50.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

JENS NEUFINCK VS MARIA FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action, Abuse of Process: SUSTAINED The tort of abuse of process constitutes the use of a legal process against another to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. Brown v. Kennard (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 40, 44.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MICHAEL KHABUSHANI VS NAJILA K. BRENT

First, the court finds the litigation privilege bars Plaintiff’s claim for abuse of process. “The [litigation] privilege has been applied specifically in the context of abuse of process claims alleging the filing of false or perjurious testimony or declarations.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1058.) This includes the communicative act of filing an allegedly false declaration of service of process. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEANNIE HUA VS ANTHONY VU NGUYEN, ET AL.

Instead, it is intended to enable courts “‘to prevent an abuse of process.’” (Amid v. Hawthorne Community Medical Group, Inc. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1383, 1390–1391.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF GLENDALE VS KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS INC ET AL

Instead, it is intended to enable courts “‘to prevent an abuse of process.’” Amid v. Hawthorne Community Medical Group, Inc. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1383, 1390-1391. Kennedy/Jenks alleges that Fugro, as Glendale’s assignee, filed the FAC which removed allegations against Fugro in the original complaint. Kennedy/Jenks contends that in the original 2016 complaint Glendale alleged that its damages were caused by Fugro’s inaccurate soil analyses. (Complaint, ¶¶ 19, 22.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

NEWPORT HARBOR OFFICES & MARINA, LLC VS. MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM

A SLAPPback is “any cause of action for malicious prosecution or abuse of process arising from the filing or maintenance of a prior cause of action that has been dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike under Section 425.16.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.18.) The Cross-Complaint here states a valid cause of action for malicious prosecution.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

GETZ V. SERRANO EL DORADO OWNERS’ ASSOC.

of process in pursuing this litigation purportedly without regard for the truth; and class counsel should be disqualified because counsel purportedly received privileged information, sat on it for more than three years, then retained, reviewed, and produced the purportedly HOA attorney-client privileged information in response to discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

THOMAS V. THOMAS

Defendant met his initial burden to show the abuse of process and malicious prosecution causes of action arise out of protected conduct. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(1) [judicial proceedings]; Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 90 [claims filed in court]; Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1063 [abuse of process]; Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 735 [malicious prosecution]; see also FAC ¶ 8; Thomas II Decl. ¶¶ 9 and 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

STEVENSON V. SHECKLER

University of Southern California, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1430-1431, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 122 [no civil causes of action for perjury or abuse of process for filing false declarations]; Kachig v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

BARKER VS. DI LANDO

The court held that Civil Code section 47, the litigation privilege, barred her claim for abuse of process. Further, even if section 47 did not apply, “mere vexation or harassment are not objectives sufficient to give rise to the tort of abuse of process.” (Id. at 1303.) Susan S. controls here. Plaintiff’s sole existing cause of action, for abuse of process, is barred by the litigation privilege.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

THE PARTS DEPARTMENT, INC. VS JOHN OKONKWO, ET AL.

(“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, common counts and abuse of process against Defendants John Okonkwo and Land Rover Alexandria (“Defendants”). On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case with respect to Okonkwo v. The Parts Department, Inc., LASC Case No. 19IWSC00192 (“LASC Case No. 19IWSC00192”) and Okonkwo v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

CYNTHIA LOPEZ VS. KENNETH LOPEZ

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on June 27, 2017 and sets forth claims for 1) defamation—libel; 2) defamation—slander; 3) IIED; 4) NIED; 5) malicious prosecution of civil action; 6) abuse of process; and 7) injunctive relief. Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint which has since been dismissed. Plaintiff and Defendant are brother and sister; each accuses the other of financial abuse of their elderly parents. Up for hearing are three motions.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Judge

    Richard E. Rico or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WILLIAM CARLYLE V. CAL FIRE, ET AL.

However, Plaintiff’s “Petition to Consider Late Claim” dated July 16, 2019, states he is asserting an abuse of process claim against the “judge and attorney.” Although he does not list Attorney Peterson as an employee who caused the damage, he does identify her specifically in Exhibit A to the late-claim petition stating she “no longer had authority to compel [Plaintiff] to attend a hearing ….”

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

RICK OLIVER TREVINO, ET AL. VS STACY HELEN TREVINO, ET AL.

Many courts… have specifically applied section 47, subdivision 2 to bar abuse of process actions… the mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit . . . is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action." (Abraham v. Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. (2007) 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 826.) Here, the basis for the Abuse of Process claim is Rick’s filing of “this lawsuit” for an improper purpose. Pursuant to Abraham v. Lancaster Cmty.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANDREA W. VS SOHAN DUA

Further, in December 2018, Cross-Defendants were advised that if they attempted to personally serve Dua, that this would be a deliberate act to embarrass Dua and constitute an abuse of process. They ignored this request, and served the Complaint at Dua’s home, causing further embarrassment. The Cross-Complaint states three causes of action for: 1) extortion; 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 3) abuse of process.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAURA SHAPIRO ET AL VS MORAD BEN NEMAN ET AL

On October 10, 2018, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend to the following causes of action: (10) constructive eviction, (12) abuse of process and frivolous filings, (17) breach of oral contract, and (24) fraud.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

XXXXXXXXXXXXX VS MARIA ESTHER CERVANTES

On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Cervantes, Vazin and Does 1-100 for: Abuse of Process Slander Per See—CCP § 46 Conversion Aiding and Abetting Conversion Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Contract Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress The Final Status Conference is set for June 8, 2020. Trial is set for June 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.

., and Scheper Kim & Harris, LLP for (1) malicious prosecution; (2) abuse of process; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) costs of suit; and (5) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MATTER OF CARRARI FAMILY TRUST

Gutierrez would not only move to quash, seek a protective order, and ask for monetary sanctions, but would also sue attorney Staton and his client for abuse of process, and seek punitive damages against them. He expressed the great pleasure he would experience when the “jury slaps you with punitive damages.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.