Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“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.)
“To establish a cause of action for abuse of process, a plaintiff must plead two essential elements: that the defendant
(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.)
“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.)
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)
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.)
"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." See S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 41-42.
JO CHAMPA VS GINA CUCINIELLLO
SC126384
Jul 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BARKER VS. DI LANDO
MSC19-01582
Mar 12, 2020
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
Without improper use of process, abuse of process has not been alleged.
SOUTH COAST SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. SCHERR
30-2020-01159792
Jun 28, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
KARL PERMAN, ET AL. VS YULIA GAYEVSKA, ET AL.
20VECV00202
Nov 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Both these cases involve malicious prosecution rather than abuse of process. Abuse of process and malicious prosecution are separate claims. The court in Bidna v. Rosen (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 27 (Bidna) described the difference between abuse of process and malicious prosecutions, stating: “Abuse of process is not just another name for malicious prosecution.
GARRETT VS. PONTES
MSC18-01760
Aug 12, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
Both these cases involve malicious prosecution rather than abuse of process. Abuse of process and malicious prosecution are separate claims. The court in Bidna v. Rosen (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 27 (Bidna) described the difference between abuse of process and malicious prosecutions, stating: “Abuse of process is not just another name for malicious prosecution.
GARRETT VS. PONTES
MSC18-01760
Aug 19, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
Again, this cannot serve as the basis for an abuse of process claim. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS SOPHIE HUESCA, ET AL.
20SMCV00130
Dec 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The challenged claim is Plaintiffs’ 11th cause of action for abuse of process. To succeed on an abuse of process claim, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants: 1) contemplated an ulterior motive in using the process, and 2) committed a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings. (Rusheen, supra, 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057.)
HAROLD NAGAN VS. PATRICK RILEY
MSC14-01619
Oct 01, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
RICK OLIVER TREVINO, ET AL. VS STACY HELEN TREVINO, ET AL.
18NWCV00181
Mar 03, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
In this instance, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the allegations within the seventh cause of action for abuse of process. An abuse of process claim is alleged by pleading an ulterior purpose and a willful act in the use of the process that is not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. (Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1157, 1168-1169.)
HUBBARD, DONALD V. BANTANG, MATTHEW
S-CV-0047198
Jul 21, 2022
Placer County, CA
Second Cause of Action: Abuse of Process Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim must also fail” because “all Plaintiff has substantively plead in Plaintiff’s voluminous pleading is that Defendant filed a Complaint against Plaintiff and improperly maintained a cause of action for an improper purpose.” (Demurrer, p. 2:1-3.)
CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.
19STCV06375
Feb 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Here, the only allegation related to abuse of process is that Plaintiff filed two separate lawsuits against the same Defendant, which, as noted above, arise out of two different accounts. This conduct does not constitute abuse of process and Defendant’s sanctions request is DENIED. With regard to Defendant’s consolidation request, that request is not properly before the Court as Defendant has filed a demurrer -- not a motion to consolidate. Thus, the Court declines to consider the request.
BANK OF AMERICA, VS MCDOWELL
30-2021-01195889
Aug 23, 2021
Orange County, CA
Regents (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 876, which involved the tort of wrongful termination of employment which could only be committed by an employer, the tort of abuse of process can be committed by an employee or agent.
THRIVENT FINANCIAL FOR LUTHERANS, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE STATE CONTROLLER ET AL
CGC16550604
Nov 06, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Accordingly, Cross-Complainant has not established that she is likely to prevail on this cause of action 2) Abuse of Process: The abuse of process cause of action is based on the filing of the lawsuit, which is not an improper purpose. (Cross-Complaint, ¶53 and ¶54.) The filing or maintaining a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose is not an abuse of process. (Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1169.)
LIEBERG OBERHANSLEY LLP VS KANTER
RIC1812773
Jun 19, 2019
Riverside County, CA
Motion For Leave To File An Anti-Slapp Motion Against Pltfs' "Abuse Of Process" Claim (Ccp 425.16 And 473(B)) MATTER CALENDARED FOR THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2006, LINE 4. DEFENDANT WARREN PUMPS, INC.'S Motion For Leave To File An Anti-Slapp Motion Against PLAINTIFFS "Abuse Of Process" Claim (Ccp 425.16 And 473(B), HEARING IS REQUIRED. =(302/REQ/JK-EX)
PETER GALASSI ET AL VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL
CGC04436144
Jul 20, 2006
San Francisco County, CA
Motion For Leave To File An Anti-Slapp Motion Against Pltfs' "Abuse Of Process" Claim (Ccp 425.16 And 473(B)) SET FOR HEARING ON JULY 7, 2006 DEFENDANT WARREN PUMPS, INC. Motion For Leave To File An Anti-Slapp Motion Against Pltfs' "Abuse Of Process" Claim (Ccp 425.16 And 473(B)) IS CONTINUED TO JULY 20, 2006 PER COURT'S OWN MOTION.=(302/JUDGE BUSCH)
PETER GALASSI ET AL VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY ET AL
CGC04436144
Jul 07, 2006
San Francisco County, CA
To Strike Causes Of Action For Malicious Prosecution And Abuse Of Process DEFENDANT GORDON AND REES LLP, S. KAPLAN, KATHLEEN MALONE To Strike Causes Of Action For Malicious Prosecution And Abuse Of Process. CONTINUED TO 9/3/03 FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY. DEPOSITION OF MENAGED (FORMER PROPERTY OWNER) 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION DUE 8/25/03. SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY DUE 8/29/03. (302/KMM/PB)
MARK J. MACCARRA BUILDERS,INC ET AL VS. RON VIDAL ET AL
CGC03416896
Aug 01, 2003
San Francisco County, CA
Discussion The Complaint appears to allege three causes of action against Defendants: (1) intentional tort, (2) abuse of process, and (3) conversion. (See Compl. Item No. 10.) The Complaint, however, only attaches one page of allegations (page no. 4), alleging only facts as to the cause of action for intentional tort. The Complaint does not allege as facts as to the causes of action for abuse of process and conversion. Defendants demur to the causes of action for abuse of process and conversion.
SHAFTON, JESSIE VS PORTER RANCH MAINTENANCE
17K04563
Mar 19, 2018
Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
The abuse of process count also alleges that due to defendant's conduct, she received a "large sum of money that she was not entitled to" out of the proceeds from the sale of GTS. Id., paragraphs 54-57. The abuse of process count further alleges that plaintiff voluntarily joined in the family court case. Id., paragraphs 9, 28, 52. The abuse of process count is insufficiently pled. It does not plead facts that defendant had an ulterior motive in using the judicial process.
MARTA BLASZCZYK VS. MARIA CABAJ
37-2017-00030890-CU-NP-CTL
Jun 25, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Abuse of process To adequately allege abuse of process, 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.” (Merlet v. Rizzo (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 53, 64.)
BRE SSP PROPERTY OWNER, LLC V. DONAGHY, ET AL.
18CECG00080
Mar 13, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 41 (SLAPP motion properly granted as to plaintiff’s abuse of process, malicious prosecution and IIED claims; abuse of process c/a failed because it only alleged maintenance of meritless lawsuit and no misuse of process). “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.
GREG CARLSON VS MATTHEW QUALL ET AL
BC634891
Oct 04, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The cross-complaint includes causes of action for implied equitable indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and IIED. The malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims all arise out of Cross-Defendants prosecution of 19LBUD02619 against Cross-Complainant. 3. Motion to Strike a. Procedural History of Motion Cross-Defendants filed this special motion to strike on 6/20/23.
DEAN W. DRULIAS, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT E. LONG, AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT E. LONG TRUST VS ELIZABETH SCOTT WISE, ET AL.
23LBCV00093
Aug 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Abuse of Process Defendants motion mentions the abuse of process claim in the notice but otherwise does not address abuse of process or applicable law in the motion. The motion only addresses probable cause for the previous case having the claim for breach of contract. The elements of a claim for abuse of process are: Ulterior purpose in commencing a process; and Willful act in an unauthorized use of the process. Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1048, 1057.
SCARLET SHEPPARD VS GEN Z STUDIOS, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV09937
Mar 29, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
(iv) Find that Defendants fail to satisfy their shifted burden of demonstrating a probability of prevailing on the merits of their sixth cause of action for abuse of process against Cross-Defendant Iaccone, on the ground that Defendants do not even attempt to satisfy their shifted burden.
LEAF FUNDING INC VS. COSMOPOLITAN LIMOUSINE SERVICE INC
56-2008-00327848-CU-CO-SIM
Dec 17, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Navid is being sued for several causes of action, including malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Both the including malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims are based on litigation activity in the prior action.
SALEHOMOUM VS. BAHRAMI-DAGHIGH
C22-00901
Jan 12, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
Abuse of Process This claim, too, was not sufficiently plead and proven. “[Abuse of process] concerns the misuse of the tools the law affords litigants once they are in a lawsuit….Hence, abuse of process claims typically arise for improper or excessive attachments [citation] or improper use of discovery [citation].” (S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 42.)
MORSCHAUSER VS MAUZEY
30-2019-01054928
Jan 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
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 the Cernas’ filing of “this action” for an improper purpose. Pursuant to Abraham v. Lancaster Cmty.
MARIA OTILIA CERNA, ET AL. VS ELIAS PANIAGUA MEJIA, ET AL.
20NWCV00429
Sep 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
IT ALSO WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS TO CONTINUE THE ACTION. THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE, CIVIL CODE SECTION 47(B), IS A DEFENSE TO BOTH THE ABUSE OF PROCESS AND INVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIMS. =(302/PJM/AY)
MARK WILLIAMS VS. VIA LEE LOW ET AL
CGC07469928
Apr 15, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
Abuse of Process “To succeed in an action for abuse of process, a litigant must establish two elements: that the defendant (1) contemplated an ulterior motive in using the process; and (2) committed a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.” (Brown v. Kennard (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 40, 44.) However, the filing or maintaining a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose is not an abuse of process. (Oren Royal Oaks Venture v.
ACTIVE MOBILITY CENTER INC VS SHALIKAR
CVRI2103801
Nov 10, 2021
Riverside County, CA
DISCUSSION On December 30, 2022, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint alleging three causes of action for (1) abuse of process, (2) fraudulent concealment, and (3) breach of contract. Cross-Defendant demurrers to each cause of action. Cause of Action for Abuse of Process Cross-Defendant argues that Cross-Complainants first cause of action for abuse of process fails to state a claim.
DOLLY HWANG VS POD JOHN MICHAEL WANG, ET AL.
22AHCV00428
Aug 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
of process, and (15) violation of the UCL.
HEIDARI LAW GROUP, P.C., A LEGAL CORPORATION VS NINA NAJAFI
21STCV23966
Jan 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
As stated by one court, “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. Abuse of process claims are subject to a special motion to strike.” (Booker v. Rountree (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1370.) This applies to actions filed by attorneys who advised clients. (Briggs v.
GERMAN VS LA FLOURE LLC
RIC2001841
Feb 23, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff argues that the Cross-Complaint is defective because an abuse of process action will not lie for mere filing of litigation. (Demurrer at pp. 4–5.) 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. Process is action taken pursuant to judicial authority.
JOSE LUIS CORONADO VS VICTORIA CAMACHO, AN INDIVIDUAL,
19STCV11577
Nov 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The firstcause of action for abuse of process fails to state a claim for abuse of process because the filing and maintenance of a lawsuit itself, even if for an improper purpose, is an insufficient basis for an abuse of process cause of action. Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1169.
2021-00561061
Aug 12, 2022
Ventura County, CA
Massie’s third cause of action for abuse of process fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim and is unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e), (f).) With his abuse of process cause of action, Mr. Massie alleges Plaintiff “bears a large disparity in wealth” to Mr. Massie, “has expressed her ability to bear more in legal costs” than Mr. Massie, and that Mr. Massie has suffered damages as a result. (¶¶ 25-27.)
JUDITH LOCKE V. DENNIS MASSIE, ET AL.
18CVP-0105
Dec 18, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Lee filed a complaint against Defendants United Escrow Co., Tracy Ko, and Douglas Chadwick Biggins to allege a single cause of action for abuse of process. On March 3, 2022, Defendant United Escrow Co. moved the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, to strike the Complainant [sic] filed by Caroline S. Lee (Lee") [mis-matched quotation marks in original] filed on or about 2-15-2022, alleging a single cause of action for abuse of process. (Anti-SLAPP Motion (United 1), p. i:21-23.)
CAROLINE S. LEE VS UNITED ESCROW CO., ET AL.
22STCV05772
Jun 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Abuse of Process Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for abuse of process because “there is nothing in paragraphs 34-42 indicating a misuse of discovery, the case was stayed in 2012, but almost exclusively were facts plead indicating malicious prosecution.” (Demurrer, p. 7:24-27 [citing FAC, ¶¶ 34-42].) Defendant maintains that “the abuse of process is not just another name of malicious prosecution.” (Id. at p. 7:20.)
CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.
19STCV06375
Nov 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
ANALYSIS Motion to Compel Arbitration Defendant Adam Fields moves to compel arbitration of the third cause of action for abuse of process.
RYAN KAVANAUGH VS ADAM FIELDS ET AL
BC709181
Feb 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges a c/a for abuse of process. Protected conduct is clearly the gravamen of the 3nd c/a for abuse of process and automatically subject to SLAPP. See Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 735; see also Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1063 (abuse of process claims automatically subject to SLAPP). Plaintiff also alleges a c/a for negligence and NIED.
JONATHAN CY VS BONNIE JOANNE MILLER
SC127806
Dec 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
She asks for protection against abuse of process but does not identify any abuse of process to which she has been or is threatened to be subjected. Plaintiff does not provide authority for a stay of the proceedings or why one is necessary to accommodate the closing of an estate. Plaintiff does not identify any estate proceeding pending. Significantly, there is no proof of service attached to the motion. Given the lack of opposition to the motion, it is very likely that it was not served.
ELLEN MOSCH VS HOMER SHEFFIELD JR
1341514
Aug 09, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
Abuse of Process and Intentional Misrepresentation are completely separate torts with separate elements. While Negligence and Negligent Misrepresentation are more closely related, they remain separate claims. Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, and Promissory Fraud are all completely different theories which cannot be rolled into one. Plaintiffs need to plead each of these theories separately, and identify clearly which facts support which theories.
DUANE R. FOLKE, ET AL. VS DEUTSCHE BANK, ET AL.
23STCV13708
Apr 10, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The fourth cause of action for abuse of process falls within the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute. Cross-Complainants has not met their burden of showing a probability of success on the merits of any aspect of the abuse of process cause of action. Defendants/Cross-Complainant's Objections to Evidence are sustained. Attorney fees are awarded to Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Gorsira in an amount to be later determined upon a showing by Plaintiff/Cross-defendant.
FRED GORSIRA VS. QUAKE COURIER AND ATTORNEY SERVICE ET AL
CGC11516203
Nov 13, 2012
San Francisco County, CA
See Blank , supra . 6 TH CAUSE OF ACTION – ABUSE OF PROCESS To state a claim for abuse of process, Plaintiff must allege facts showing Defendants (1) contemplated an ulterior motive in using the process and (2) committed a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings. JSJ Limited Partnership (2012) 205 CA4th 1512, 1522. Merely filing a court action for an improper purpose does not qualify as abuse of process.
EMAD YOUNIS VS JOYCE ANTONICH, ET AL.
20CHCV00065
Jul 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
of process, and (15) violation of the UCL.
HEIDARI LAW GROUP, P.C., A LEGAL CORPORATION VS NINA NAJAFI
21STCV23966
Feb 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
of process, and (15) violation of the UCL.
HEIDARI LAW GROUP, P.C., A LEGAL CORPORATION VS NINA NAJAFI
21STCV23966
Apr 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges a c/a for abuse of process. Protected conduct is clearly the gravamen of the 3nd c/a for abuse of process and automatically subject to SLAPP. See Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 735; see also Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1063 (abuse of process claims automatically subject to SLAPP). Plaintiff also alleges a c/a for negligence and NIED.
JONATHAN CY VS BONNIE JOANNE MILLER
SC127806
Dec 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant did withdraw its defense until after the abuse of process claim was dismissed. Once the abuse of process claim was dismissed, Defendant did not have a duty to defend under the malicious prosecution clause in the policy.
MSC19-00167
Apr 06, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
Gary’s fifth cause of action is for abuse of process. “‘[T]o 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 wilful act in a wrongful manner. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lee (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 34, 40.)
GARY LARSON VS DIANA KRISTIN LARSON ET AL
16CV05711
Oct 18, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Abuse of Process “[T]he two fundamental elements that constitute the basis of the tort of abuse of process [are]: ‘first, an ulterior purpose, and second, a wilful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.’ ” Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 103–04 (quoting Templeton Feed and Grain v. Ralston Purina Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 461, 466. “Abuse of process is not just another name for malicious prosecution.
ADAM MICHAEL SACKS VS BILLI BITTAN
BC607561
Dec 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Abuse of Process Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action against them for Abuse of Process. 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 Ins. Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792.)
KAREEN GILLESPIE VS PAULA WALKER-KESTERMANN, ET AL.
21STCV39018
May 03, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
RSC argues: The claim for abuse of process based on the use of provisional remedies is not an actionable abuse of process recognized by the California Supreme Court.
DAVID MARSHALL VS ROGERS SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL LLP
1372400
Jan 18, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
This is insufficient to state a claim for abuse of process against Reis. The mere filing of the lawsuit, per the authority quoted above, cannot support a COA for abuse of process. However, as discussed above, there is an issue of erroneous service of process in the underlying case. P has alleged that this error in service was committed intentionally to prevent him from responding to the petition. (FAC ¶ 100).
BRYAN KAYE VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP I
BC609962
Apr 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
“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.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056.) “To succeed in an action for abuse of process, a litigant must establish that the defendant (1) contemplated an ulterior motive in using the process, and (2) committed a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.” (Id. at 1057.)
HARMONING, ADAM V. NYBERG, MICHELE
S-CV-0047743
Mar 08, 2022
Placer County, CA
“The essential elements for abuse of process are: (1) an ulterior motive; and (2) a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.” Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 868, 876 (citations omitted). “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.
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL VS PETER MITCHELL
19TRCV00045
Jul 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Except for the issues of prevailing party and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred, the anti-SLAPP motion by defendants Raytheon Company, et al. is MOOT because plaintiff has dismissed his sixth cause of action for abuse of process. (See, Dismissal of Sixth Cause of Action for Abuse of Process filed 10-28-17.)
MANKARUSE V. RAYTHEON COMPANY
30-2016-00878349-CU-IP-CJC
Nov 09, 2017
Orange County, CA
To succeed in an action for abuse of process, a litigant must establish two elements: that the defendant (1) contemplated an ulterior motive in using the process; and (2) committed a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings. In other words, abuse of process requires an act outside the purpose of the process. ( Brown v. Kennard (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 40, 44, footnotes omitted.)
DOLLY HWANG VS POD JOHN MICHAEL WANG, ET AL.
22AHCV00428
Jan 25, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
They are; (1) Abuse of Process-Intentionally Perpetrating Injustice (FACC, p. 7); and (2) Abuse of Process- Allegedly Filing False Declarations Regarding Service of Court Papers. (FACC, p. 12.) As the FACC itself notes, abuse of process is distinct from malicious prosecution. (See FACC, p. 3.) Despite this, both the demurring party and the opposing party treat the FACC as if it were alleging a claim for malicious prosecution also. That claim is nowhere formally pleaded in the cross-complaint, however.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. MOSLENKO
30-2014-00731114-CU-CL-CJC
Oct 26, 2018
Orange County, CA
On July 12, 2021, Behrouz Shafie and Behrouz Shafie & Associates, filed a special motion to strike the entire cross-complaint, or alternatively, to strike the Fifth Cause of Action of the Cross-complaint for Abuse of Process.
BEHROUZ SHAFIE, ET AL. VS JAMES SARNOFF
20SMCV00847
Oct 05, 2021
Timothy Lee Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
The third and fourth counts (abuse of process), which are based on the filing and serving of the two underlying lawsuits, lack merit since the mere filing and maintenance of a lawsuit is not sufficient to support a claim for abuse of process. See Oren Royal Oaks Venture & Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., supra, 42 Cal.3d at 1169. Moreover, plaintiff in opposing the Herzfeld defendants' demurrer concedes the abuse of process counts lack merit by his statement that he will "drop" the counts.
HAGENBUCH VS STEEL
37-2016-00022478-CU-NP-CTL
Nov 08, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The first c/a for abuse of process alleges that “pursuant t the goals of the conspiracy Mr. Maleksalehi filed this action”, and named Mr. Tabatabai; tha “Mr. Tabatabai then sued Mr. Lindow in the same action”. (FACC ¶¶111, 112); that Lindow ha been damaged “as a result of the actions of Mr.
MALEKSALEHI V TABATABAI
18CV02004
Apr 29, 2021
: Timothy Volkmann</p>
Santa Cruz County, CA
Defendants Mahmoud Assi and Harry Assi's special motion to strike the fourth cause of action for abuse of process pursuant to CCP § 425.16 is granted. Defendants have met their initial burden of establishing that the fourth cause of action contained in the complaint for abuse of process arose from the defendants' free speech or petition activity entitled to the protection of CCP § 425.16(e). Thus, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits.
BARRY WALKER VS. MAHMOUD MIKE ASSI
37-2017-00038555-CU-BC-NC
Apr 12, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
. ¶¶ 27, 45, 51-53 [claims for abuse of process and perjury]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(1); Booker v. Rountree (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1370-1371 [abuse of process claim subject to anti-SLAPP motion].) Cross-complainant has not met his shifted burden to show a probability of prevailing. (See, e.g., Jacob B. v. County of Shasta (2007) 40 Cal.4th 948, 955-956 [litigation privilege applies to perjury].) He has not shown the public interest exception applies. (See Code Civ.
Copenbarger v. West Coast Highway LLC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT TO STATE CLAIM FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND ABUSE OF PROCESS. (JH)
DESMOND MORGAN VS. DENNIS S WEAVER ET AL
CGC02403442
Apr 29, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ABUSE OF PROCESS GRANTED. NO SHOWING OF ULTERIOR MOTIVE. (302/AJR/AA)
DESMOND MORGAN VS. DENNIS S WEAVER ET AL
CGC02403442
Jan 08, 2003
San Francisco County, CA
Defendant demurs to the Cross-Complaint on the grounds that it fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (e). 1st Cause of Action for Fraud and Abuse of Process Cross-Complainant improperly attempts to state two different causes of action—fraud and abuse of process—in the first cause of action. Neither is supported by sufficient factual allegations.
DISCOVER BANK VS RANDALL STEVENS
19CHLC22837
Jan 09, 2020
James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Collections
For the instant motion, the only relevant cause of action against Moving Defendant Hovsepian is the 2nd cause of action for abuse of process.
JAYDON DOUGLAS PAULL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HASTI RAHSEPAR, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
23STCV29711
Mar 12, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
DEMURRER DEMURRER OVERRULED AS TO 1)FRAUD 2)CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD 3)SLANDER OF TITLE 4)ABUSE OF PROCESS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. ARBITRATION AND CONFIRMING JUDGMENT BARS CLAIMS ADVANCED. (AD(EX)
MORT GARSON VS. LAWRENCE WILLIAM FASANO JR ET AL
CGC01402464
Mar 06, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
The filing of a lawsuit is not the equivalent of abuse of process. ( Trear v. Sills (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1359.) Moreover, as pled, Plaintiffs abuse of process cause of action is based on Defendants pursuit of restraining orders and based on reports to the City of Lakewood. The litigation privilege of Cal. Civ. Code §47(b) applies to Plaintiffs abuse of process claim. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.
DEREK LEFKOWITH, ET AL. VS BENJAMIN BROWN, ET AL.
23NWCV01639
Mar 07, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2016, LINE 11 DEFENDANT T YEE, The Controller's demurrer to the sole cause of action for abuse of process Overruled. Thrivent has adequately alleged that the Controller had an ulterior motive in using the discovery processes and that it committed a willful act by using the discovery it received from Thrivent in violation of court orders.
THRIVENT FINANCIAL FOR LUTHERANS, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE STATE CONTROLLER ET AL
CGC16550604
May 05, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim is explicitly based on Defendants bringing and maintaining a theory of adverse possession in their lawsuit. (FAC, ¶ 35.)
FCS057742 - COOLEY, FREDERICK MARC VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, (DMS)
FCS057742
Jul 22, 2022
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim is explicitly based on Defendants bringing and maintaining a theory of adverse possession in their lawsuit. (FAC, ¶ 35.)
FCS057742 - COOLEY, FREDERICK MARC VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, (DMS)
FCS057742
Jul 20, 2022
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim is explicitly based on Defendants bringing and maintaining a theory of adverse possession in their lawsuit. (FAC, ¶ 35.)
FCS057742 - COOLEY, FREDERICK MARC VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, (DMS)
FCS057742
Jul 21, 2022
Solano County, CA
The demurrer to the sixth cause of action for abuse of process is sustained with leave to amend. The element of abuse of process are: - Ulterior purpose in commencing a process; and - Willful act in an unauthorized use of the process. (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1048, 1057.) Cross-complainant alleges Cross-Defendants manufactured charges of elder abuse. (Cross-Complaint ¶39.)
KEEBLER VS KEEBLER
37-2017-00010382-CU-FR-CTL
Aug 03, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Here, as discussed above, plaintiff's abuse of process claim is based on the allegation that defendant has misused the litigation process by subpoenaing its directors in the small claims action. Accordingly, the litigation privilege applies and bars the abuse of process claim. C. Conclusion. Based on the foregoing, the court strikes the entire abuse of process claim (paragraphs 29-35), as well as the allegations in paragraphs 17, 18, and 23(b).
37-2022-00035955-CU-NP-CTL
Feb 17, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Defendant contends the abuse of process cause of action also fails as Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead abuse of process and the litigation privilege applies to Defendant’s purported conduct. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 1. Protected Activity “To prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion, the movant must first make ‘a threshold showing the challenged cause of action’ arises from an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue.”
BRYAN KAYE VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP I
BC609962
Oct 24, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
MSC18-01760 NUMBER: CASE NAME: GARRETT VS PONTES *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS TO COA FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS IN HIS 5TH AMENDED COMPLAINT *TENTATIVE RULING:* Continued by the Court to August 12, 2022.
GARRETT VS. PONTES
MSC18-01760
Jul 29, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
Plaintiffs second cause of action is for abuse of process. To state a claim for abuse of process, Plaintiff must allege that Defendant had an ulterior purpose in commencing a process, and that used the process for an unauthorized purpose. ( Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1048, 1057.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant appealed the underlying action to delay the enforcement of the judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶¶ 32-33.)
JJ ZHANG VS CRAIG CHANG, ET AL.
22STCV22643
Nov 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
CLAIMS FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS AND TRESPASS STRIKEN BASED ON CONCESSION BY PLAINTIFF. (CW)
THADDEUS DOYKA VS JOHN A LORD
CGC01320170
Feb 07, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
Abuse of Process Defendant argues that Plaintiffs abuse of process claim is unsupported by the evidence. In particular, Defendant argues in full that: during trial there was no evidence that any conduct of Kenneth satisfied those legal requirements for abuse of process. (Vithlani Decl. ¶ 9). Granted, the jury found that Kenneth engaged in malicious prosecution by filing his Cross-Complaint.
CYNTHIA LOPEZ VS. KENNETH LOPEZ
BC669038
Jul 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to establish her Second Cause of Action for Abuse of Process. For abuse of process, a plaintiff must show 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 Ins. Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792.
AIDA A. LIMA VS ALAN T. SCHROEDER, JR, ET AL.
19AVCV00318
Jun 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Cross-Complaint asserts claims for Slander of Title and Abuse of Process arising out of protected activity. ("Cross-Defendant filed the Complaint on June 9, 2021, thereafter recorded notices of pendency of action upon Unit 202 and Unit 303, claiming some interest in each of the Subject Properties, and casting doubt upon Cross-Complainant's ownership."). Opposing party failed to show likelihood of prevailing on the merits re: privileged communications. CC 47(b)(4).
MAURICIO MAGANA CASTILLO VS. AARON GRUVER ET AL
CGC21592688
Nov 12, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
The demurrers to the first cause of action, for abuse of process, are sustained. First, the complaint is so vague that it is very difficult to determine what exactly the Plaintiff is complaining about. There is no allegation that any particular process in any particular prior litigation was somehow misused.
LC10-5599
Oct 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792 [where defendant’s appeal was frivolous and meant to force plaintiffs into a “cheap settlement,” there was no abuse of process because defendant was entitled to appeal the judgment; defendant may be fined or caused to pay sanctions to the other party upon losing the appeal, but the act of filing the appeal did not constitute an abuse of process].) Simply, Tey Amo fails to state facts showing the act of filing the complaint was done in an unauthorized manner.
INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS TEYAMO INC
17K02722
Aug 17, 2017
Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Plaintiff also argues in opposition that at the very least, the motion should be denied as it relates to the abuse of process cause of action, and the court should find that defendant owed plaintiff a duty to defend during the pendency of the abuse of process claim.
PAUL J. ABRAMSON, VS SPINNAKER INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV24687
Sep 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The cross-complaint includes causes of action for implied equitable indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and IIED. The malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims all arise out of Cross-Defendants prosecution of 19LBUD02619 against Cross-Complainant. 3.
DEAN W. DRULIAS, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT E. LONG, AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT E. LONG TRUST VS ELIZABETH SCOTT WISE, ET AL.
23LBCV00093
Jan 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action (Abuse of Process) In the Court’s opinion, the second cause of action does not plead an abuse of process distinguishable from the alleged malicious prosecution. Rather, the FAC merely claims that Mr. Mikhail’s intent in bringing a prior lawsuit may be gleaned from “his past conduct by bringing several other similarly situated frivolous/baseless lawsuits against Plaintiff Ordoubadi.” Mr.
MOHAMMAD ORDOUBADI VS. YOUSSEF MIKHAIL, ET AL
LC105320
Apr 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
AS TO ABUSE OF PROCESS SET FACTS BEYOND FILING SUIT THAT WERE PURSUED AND IN PROPER PURPOSE. SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND MOTION PROSECUTION RE: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. (302/REQ/HE)
PAUL TALCOTT CURRIER VS. ROBERT CHOW ET AL
CGC05440882
Oct 13, 2005
San Francisco County, CA
Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleged claims for Fraud, Abuse of Process, 42 USC 1983, and Conspiracy - Violation of RICO. In both actions, Plaintiff alleges violation of the same primary right, i.e., Plaintiff’s right to fair process, Defendant’s duty to ensure fair process, and Defendant’s breach by failing to disclose that Ronald Kreber was not a licensed attorney. Plaintiff raised identical issues and claims in both actions.
MARIA MEZA VS COUNTY OF ORANGE
VC067251
Apr 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
As to the First Cause of Action for abuse of process: Plaintiff must plead 1. that the Defendant entertained an ulterior motive in using the process and 2. committed a willful act in a wrongful manner. (Coleman v. Gulf Ins. Grp. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782. An action for abuse of process does not lie where process is used properly even though the motive may be bad. (Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 826.)
TD BANK USA VS RUIZ MANZO
PSC1800034
Aug 31, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Ninth Cause of Action for Abuse of Process Defendants demur to the ninth cause of action on the ground that it is barred by the litigation privilege. As stated in the Courts ruling on Defendants anti-SLAPP motion, the claim for abuse of process is barred and must be stricken. The demurrers to this claim are moot. F.
GERALD WHITT, ET AL. VS EDISON NATION, INC., ET AL.
20STCV41207
Apr 05, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
STEVENSON V. SHECKLER
PC-20180142
Mar 13, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
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.)
THOMAS V. THOMAS
30-2017-00941813
Jun 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
(Defendant), a self-represented party, has filed a cross-complaint against the Plaintiff, as well as Keystone, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, abuse of process, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, and injunctive relief. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike, following which defendant filed a first amended complaint for abuse of process, defamation/malicious misrepresentation, and injunctive relief.
JOSEPH P. GAUTHIER,, CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD L. GAUTHIER, SR., ET AL. VS EDWARD L. GAUTHIER, JR., ET AL.
21STCV27455
Jan 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The third amended cross complaint (TACC), containing causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process. Aimco moves to strike under Californias anti-SLAPP statute. Courts resolving an anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Code §425.16 must follow a two-step process. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 733.
AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS SOPHIE HUESCA, ET AL.
20SMCV00130
Feb 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Elmasri demurs to the sole cause of action for Abuse of Process contained in the Cross-Complaint. “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.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056.)
FAWAZ ELMASRI VS JUSTIN PAUL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
20GDCV00161
Sep 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
The 6 th cause of action for abuse of process is governed by a one year statute of limitations. See Cantu (1992) 4 CA4th 857, 864; CCP 340(3). The limitations period begins to run when the abuse of process occurs; however, if the injury to the plaintiff does not occur when the abuse of process occurs, the limitations period begins to run when the injury occurs. Cantu , supra at 864.
EMAD YOUNIS VS JOYCE ANTONICH, ET AL.
20CHCV00065
Jul 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
However, it does appear that Plaintiff has alleged a cause of action for abuse of process. In order to allege a cause of action for abuse of process, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant (1) entertained an ulterior motive in using the process; and (2) committed a willful act in a wrongful manner. (State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lee (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 34, 39-40.)
DUNCAN V. MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH, LLP ET AL.
18CECG02381
Oct 22, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Not only does the filing of the action and the certificate fall within the litigation privilege, but cross-complainants have not stated a cause of action for abuse of process. A claim for abuse of process arises when a party (1) for ulterior reasons (2) misuses the court's process for a purpose other than the purpose for which the process was designed.
WEINBERG VS SPANISH HILLS HOA
56-2008-00317452-CU-BC-VTA
Mar 03, 2009
Ventura County, CA
While this evidence would generally support an abuse of process claim, it does not dispose of the privilege. Consequently, as to abuse of process, the motion is granted. 2. Malicious Prosecution Manuel opposes the motion by asserting the viability of a malicious prosecution claim.
IRIS MANUEL VS. VARDOUI MADATIAN, ET AL
EC059570
Mar 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Abuse of Process [S]ince the essence of the tort of abuse of process ... [is] some misuse of process in a prior action[,] ... it is hard to imagine an abuse of process claim that would not fall under the protection of the [anti-SLAPP] statute. [Citation.] ( Maleti v. Wickers (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 181, 200201.) Plaintiffs abuse of process claim alleges the following.
GERALD WACHEL, ET AL. VS TY LABBE, ET AL.
21STCV47525
Oct 14, 2022
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.