What is a Motion for Malicious Prosecution?

Useful Resources for Motion for Malicious Prosecution

Recent Rulings on Motion for Malicious Prosecution

VN PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS MACAULEY EKPENISI, ET AL.

Favorable Termination of Suit “The first element of a malicious prosecution cause of action is that the underlying case must have been terminated in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff. The basis of the favorable termination element is that the resolution of the underlying case must have tended to indicate the malicious prosecution plaintiff's innocence. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MAXIMINO SOTO VS DE ROBLIN, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;, ET AL.

Several courts have found instructive the definition of 'probable cause' in the malicious prosecution context. [Citation.] The terms 'reasonable cause' and 'probable cause' are generally considered synonymous, with 'reasonable cause' defined under an objective standard as ' "whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable." ' [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CUEVAS-MARTINEZ VS SUN SALT SAND INC

“[A] malicious prosecution plaintiff must show the defendant (i) initiated an action that was ultimately terminated in the plaintiff's favor and (ii) brought or maintained that action without probable cause and (iii) with malice.” (Cuevas-Martinez v. Sun Salt Sand (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1109, 1118.) “The question of probable cause is whether, as an objective matter, the prior action was legally tenable or not.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

SAMUEL A. MENDLESTEIN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Malicious Prosecution 2. Failure to Discharge Mandatory Duty (Gov’t Code 815.6) 3. Failure to Enforce Laws and Enactments (Gov’t Code 818.2, 821) 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress RULING: The demurrer is placed off calendar. Due to Plaintiff’s filing of a First Amended Complaint on 1/12/21, the hearing on the demurrer is moot. See Code of Civil Procedure Section 472(a).

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

PIERRE RICHARD VS JAMES A FRIEDEN, ET AL.

Frieden’s Motion Frieden moves for an order granting him an attorney fees award of $49,656.07 against Plaintiff following the Court’s decision to grant Frieden’s Anti-SLAPP motion and striking Plaintiff’s complaint for malicious prosecution. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §425.13(c).) Plaintiff filed the instant action for malicious prosecution against Defendants on December 10, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KRISTI COURTOIS, , AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS BENEFICIARY AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF AUSTEENE G. COOPER VS NEWREZ, LLC., ET AL.

., malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, defamation).” (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 299.) Accordingly the demurrer to the twelfth cause of action is OVERRULED

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LILIAN ISELA MORALES COMPARINI VS JOSE MANUEL BARAJAS SERRAN

The immunity in section 821.6 not only protects against claims for malicious prosecution (Gillan, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048), but “extends to other causes of action arising from conduct protected under the statute … .” (Ibid.) The immunity applies even if the officers abused their authority. (Randle v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 449, 456–457 [230 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP V. STOLL

[T]he litigation privilege shields “litigants, attorneys and witnesses from liability for . . . virtually all torts except malicious prosecution. [Citations.]” Yet if it also protected an attorney from any suit by a former client, no malpractice suit could be brought'’ [Citation.] [¶] Donahue cites no cases holding the litigation privilege bars malpractice actions based on an attorney's litigation-related acts or omissions, and we have found none.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

MARYAM GHUKASIAN VS AEGIS SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, A STOCK INSURER, ET AL.

In Downey, the Court found Section 533 precluded indemnification for an underlying claim for malicious prosecution for an insured who was found personally liable, in which the insurer tendered a defense, notwithstanding the fact a claim for malicious prosecution was expressly promised in the policy. (Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co., supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at 486, 517.) The Downey Court found Section 533 did not preclude a duty to defend the same underlying claim, as was argued by the insurer. (Id. at 517.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHRISTOPER BOGLE, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY AGGRIEVED VS WONOLO INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Crowley was a malicious prosecution action arising out of a previous will contest action. (Id. at 673.) Thus, although Crowley discusses the standard for applying the primary rights doctrine, Crowley does not stand for the proposition that the primary rights doctrine applies to determining whether to abate the instant action. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that abatement is not proper because the instant action raises distinct claims from the Cooper and Curbelo Actions. (Opposition, 5-9.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JACOB A. SHAHBAZ, ET AL. VS MOHAMED A. HADID, ET AL.

But this is not an action to enforce any provision of the retainer agreement; this is an action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Moreover, the attorney fees requested remain unsupported by competent evidence. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(b) and Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.214(a).) And finally, Plaintiff is seeking prejudgment interest in the amount of $13,768.04.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Malicious Prosecution/Misappropriation of Name or Likeness Malicious prosecution requires: (1) an action commenced by or at the direction of defendant; (2) pursued to a legal termination favorable to plaintiff; (3) brought without probable clause; and (4) initiated with malice. (Van Audenhove v. Perry (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 915, 918–919.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

ZARA RIVAS V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

The SAC only references Fernandez in Plaintiff’s paragraph purporting to allege “procedural tort:” “Procedural Tort involves malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Defendants are Child Welfare Services Workers, Maria Novatt, Jean Dandona, and Melissa Fernandez.” (SAC, p. 7.) The Court will sustain the Fernandez demurrer with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

TERRY HERRERA, ET AL. VS FULL CIRCLE REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Bottom line is this, I don't need you to substitute I need you to bring forth a complaint and sue an attorney that I can wrap up and deliver on a silver platter that this is malicious prosecution and abuse of process not to mention I can tie this attorney up in a conspiracy charge to defraud the federal government Ruben plays way too much in the box and when you deal with the pieces of shit that I am dealing with there is no black and white ............. just a a lot of gray and I need someone to share that

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ALEXANDAR CVETKOVICH VS CROSS CREEK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged the 14th cause of action Malicious Prosecution. Whether Plaintiff can ultimately prove the claim is not the proper subject of a demurrer. As with the 4th and 11th causes of action, Plaintiff improperly added the 15th cause of action for Accounting without leave of court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

LAW FIRM COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, VS JEFF KERN, ET AL.

The Kim Retainer also warned of the risks in bringing a claim for malicious prosecution, noting that it was possible the Kern Defendants might suffer an adverse outcome. Maloney Decl., ¶14, Ex. A, pp. 5-6. At Maloney’s first meeting with Kern and Stuart, he explained that he does not take malicious prosecution cases on a contingent fee due to the risk of drawing an anti-SLAPP motion, which, win or lose, often results in an appeal delaying the case. Maloney Decl., ¶17.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

MOLINA VS. ASHRAF

Movant Ashraf Safi further has requested an award of attorney’s fees for “malicious prosecution.” The Court finds that this was a sincere and understandable mistake which did not entail bad faith. Moreover, Counsel for Movant Ashraf Safi has not complied with Code of Civ. Proc. § 128.7 regarding request for sanctions. Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

Vergara’s complaint brings causes of action for: (1) Declaratory Judgment (2) Permanent Injunctive Relief (3) Breach of Contract (4) Promissory Fraud (5) Promissory Estoppel (dism. after decision not to amend) (6) Malicious Prosecution. (dism. after appeal) On April 14, 2017 Loeb filed a demurrer and motion to strike portions of the complaint. Loeb also filed an anti-SLAPP motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

SKYLIGHT ADVISORS LLC VS ZEPHYR INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC

Although this Court has deemed the malicious prosecution action related to this breach of lease agreement action for case management purposes, the actions have not been consolidated. The proceedings in the malicious prosecution action are separate from and do not affect the judgment in this breach of lease agreement action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

MOBILE FARMING SYSTEMS, INC. VS. PROBST

Catanzarite, Case No. 2020-01145998, a malicious prosecution action with a cross-complaint by the plaintiff in this case. However, plaintiff has not brought a motion to consolidate discovery in this case, and the Beck file shows 16 future motions, but no motion to consolidate discovery. Thus, plaintiff appears to seek an indefinite postponement. Other reasons also compel the denial of this motion. The grant of a motion to consolidate discovery may never happen.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

JONATHAN C ROSEN ET AL VS DALE REICHENEDER LAW GROUP ET AL

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on January 11, 2018, a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on October 22, 2018, and a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on March 11, 2019, alleging a single cause of action sounding in malicious prosecution. PRESENTATION: The Court heard and granted a Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP) the Complaint on October 12, 2018, which was thereafter appealed. The Second District Court of Appeal, Division 4 affirmed this order on July 02, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

SUNIL PATEL VS IMEG CORP,, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Request for Discovery Regarding Defendants’ Contention that Patel Manipulated a Key Financial Figure and Malice “The malice element of the malicious prosecution tort goes to the defendant’s subjective intent in initiating the prior action. [Citation.] For purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, malice ‘is not limited to actual hostility or ill will toward the plaintiff. Rather, malice is present when proceedings are instituted primarily for an improper purpose.’ [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTHONY K. CHU VS LONG Z. LIU, ET AL.

The California Supreme Court in Jarrow dealt with a malicious prosecution claim, discussed the issue at some length, noted that such an action necessarily involves petitioning activity, as it “arises from an underlying lawsuit, or petition to the judicial branch,” and expressly declined to engraft onto the anti-SLAPP statute an exception for malicious prosecution claims. See Jarrow, at 734-740. The cause of action for malicious prosecution is accordingly subject to the provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MOBILE FARMING SYSTEMS, INC. VS. PROBST

Catanzarite, Case No. 2020-01145998, a malicious prosecution action with a cross-complaint by the plaintiff in this case. However, plaintiff has not brought a motion to consolidate discovery in this case, and the Beck file shows 16 future motions, but no motion to consolidate discovery. Thus, plaintiff appears to seek an indefinite postponement. Other reasons also compel the denial of this motion. The grant of a motion to consolidate discovery may never happen.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

AMPARO LOPEZ VS. CENTERS FOR FAMILY HEALTH

The §998 offer was for waiver of costs and malicious prosecution claims only. The Court does not have sufficient information to determine the good faith of the offer. Additionally, the documentation provided by Defendant to substantiate the fees is not properly authenticated and is missing key details such as the date of services. The Court sustains Plaintiffs objections to these documents.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 52     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.