“The common law tort of abuse of process arises when one uses the court’s process for a purpose other than that for which the process was designed.” (JSJ Ltd. Partnership v. Mehrban (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1512, 1522.) Abuse of process “has been interpreted broadly to encompass the entire range of ‘procedures’ incident to litigation. The essence of the tort 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.” (S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 41.) The purpose of the tort is “to preserve the integrity of the court.” (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1014.)

“The gravamen of the claim is misconduct in the underlying litigation. Indeed, that is the essence of the tort of abuse of process—some misuse of process in a prior action—and it is hard to imagine an abuse of process claim that would not fall under the protection of the statute.” (Booker v. Rountree (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1370.)

“Simply filing or maintaining a lawsuit for an improper purpose (such as might support a malicious prosecution cause of action) is not abuse of process. Malicious prosecution and abuse of process are distinct. The former concerns a meritless lawsuit (and all the damage it inflicted). The latter concerns the misuse of the tools the law affords litigants once they are in a lawsuit (regardless of whether there was probable cause to commence that lawsuit in the first place). Hence, abuse of process claims typically arise for improper or excessive attachments or improper use of discovery.” (S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 41–42.)

Legal Standard

“To establish a cause of action for abuse of process, a plaintiff must plead two essential elements: that the defendant

1. entertained an ulterior motive in using the process and
2. committed a willful act in a wrongful manner.”

(Coleman v. Gulf Insurance Group (1986) 41 C.3d 782, 792; Merlet v. Rizzo (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 53, 64; Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 868, 876.)

Ulterior Motive

“For purpose of abuse of process, the ulterior motive to prove is that the party employing the process did so for an end not germane thereto. And, an improper purpose may consist in achievement of a benefit totally extraneous to or of a result not within its legitimate scope. Mere ill will against the adverse party in the proceedings does not constitute an ulterior or improper motive.” (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 868, 876.)

“If... the filing of an action for an improper ‘ulterior’ purpose were itself sufficient to give rise to an abuse of process action, the ‘lack-of-probable-cause’ element of the malicious prosecution tort would be completely negated; even if an individual could demonstrate that he had reasonable cause to believe that his initial lawsuit had merit when he filed the action, he would still face potential liability under an abuse of process theory. Because the lack-of-probable-cause requirement in the malicious prosecution tort plays a crucial role in protecting the right to seek judicial relief... this element may not be circumvented through expansion of the abuse of process tort to encompass the alleged improper filing of a lawsuit.” (Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1169–1170.)

Willful Act in a Wrongful Manner

To allege the second element of an abuse of process claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing “a definite act or threat not authorized by the process or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the process... and there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions. The improper 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, by the use of the process as a threat or a club. There is, in other words, a form of extortion, and it is what is done in the course of negotiation, rather than the issuance or any formal use of the process itself, which constitutes the tort.” (Spellens v Spellens (1957) 49 Cal.2d 210, 232-233)

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for a claim of abuse of process is one year from the abuse or one year from when the injury occurred. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 886-887.)