What is a Motion for Malicious Prosecution?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Malicious Prosecution

Recent Rulings on Motion for Malicious Prosecution

RAYMOND VILLAGE, LLC V. HILL RANCH PARTNERSHIP

The California Supreme Court determined that, since the filing of the complaint itself was privileged and could only be attacked in a malicious prosecution action if done without probable cause, to sustain a claim against a party that allegedly induced the privileged filing, PG&E would have to allege the complaint lacked probable cause.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

DAVID J. DOVICHI VS. JAMES V. DE LA VERGNE

Plaintiffs convinced the 2012 jury that McCartney engaged in malicious prosecution against them – a finding of liability that, but for Judge Hersher issuing a directed verdict specific to McCartney, would have immediately led to a bifurcated trial on the issue of punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAWRENCE CHIBUEZE, ET AL. VS TELOPS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

Civil Code § 47(b), also known as the “litigation privilege,” applies to “ ‘any communication, whether or not it amounts to publication [citations], and all torts except malicious prosecution. [Citations.] Further, it applies to any publication required or permitted by law in the course of a judicial proceeding to achieve the objects of the litigation, even though the publication is made outside the courtroom and no function of the court or its officers is involved.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MALDONADO VS OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR

"The litigation privilege immunizes litigants from liability for torts, other than malicious prosecution, which arise from communications in judicial proceedings. (Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 212, 215, 266 Cal.Rptr. 638, 786 P.2d 365.) The privilege generally applies to any communication by a litigant in a judicial proceeding that is made 'to achieve the objects of the litigation' and has 'some connection or logical relation to the action.' (Id. at p. 212, 266 Cal.Rptr. 638, 786 P.2d 365.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

WANDA NELSON V. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, ET AL.

to the malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

JOSHUA DUBINSKY VS JIM MULHEARN, ET AL.

Here, appellant's complaint alleges malicious prosecution which qualifies for treatment under section 425.16 as a matter of law. [Citation.] Thus, it was not necessary for Larivee to present admissible evidence to shift the burden to appellant to provide opposition.”].) Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s objection, the Court recognizes Mulhern’s joinder. 7476 improperly moves to strike causes of action that are not asserted against it.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

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

DAVID J. DOVICHI VS. JAMES V. DE LA VERGNE

The appellate case concerned whether McCartney had probable cause to be involved in the Bendahans' initial lawsuit, as a claim for malicious prosecution requires a plaintiff to establish that probable cause to bring the legal action was lacking and that the action was initiated with malice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HALLETT V. JACQUET, ET AL.

Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205, 215, notes that the privilege is absolute in nature and “is applicable to any communication, whether or not it amounts to a publication, and all torts except malicious prosecution.” Specifically, it covers “any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

KAREN VELIE V. CHARLES TENBORG, CEC ECO SOLUTIONS, INC.

Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057-1058 [litigation privilege applies to claims alleging false or perjurious testimony and protects from all torts except malicious prosecution.]) The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish a probability of prevailing in her action. Evidentiary Objections The Court rules as follows on the parties’ evidentiary objections: Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to evidence filed in support of Defendants’ special motion to strike: The Court overrules objections 2, 3.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

STEVEN J. REVITZ ET. AL. VS. DR. BENNY NEWMAN ET. AL.

Revitz now sues for malicious prosecution, and Newman moves to case reclassify as a limited civil action on the grounds that the damages sought cannot possibly exceed $25,000. Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266. Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §403.040 a matter may be reclassified if there is a “legal certainty” plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than $25,000.00. Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 272.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DEBRA ANN REID ET AL VS GERALD BARNES ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT On March 27, 2018, Plaintiff Debra Ann Reid (“Plaintiff”) filed this malicious prosecution and defamation action arising from earlier litigation between Plaintiff and Defendant Gerald Barnes (“Defendant”). The Court entered default against Defendant on March 25, 2019. On July 16, 2019, Defendant moved for relief from default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Defendant’s attorney, Lola M.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NICOLE PARK VS MOON KYUNG KIM

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 18, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of June 18, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None ANALYSIS: Background On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff Nicole Park (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendant

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY VS SCOTT WILLIAM POWERS ET AL

Malicious prosecution; “c. The wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor; “d. Oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services; “e.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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

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

Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 872-874, 254 Cal.Rptr. 336, 765 P.2d 498 [limitations on malicious prosecution recovery]; Pollock v. 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

ANNA BENEDETTI, ET AL. VS JOHNNY MIMS, ET AL.

Plaintiffs also argue that they need the documents as soon as possible because the County has threatened to file a malicious prosecution claim against plaintiffs, so plaintiffs need to determine whether the County had a joint powers agreement with the City, and whether the County is a viable party. Plaintiffs argue that key witnesses, such as supervisors at MASH, may become unavailable due to the stay, and that the more time that passes, the less fresh information will be in the minds of the witnesses.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

STEVE S. KIM VS IN SOOK PARK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PARK FAMILY TRUST, ET AL.

This privilege is applicable to any communication and it bars all torts other than malicious prosecution. (Ibid.) The privilege is still valid even for communications that are made “with malice or the intent to harm.” (Wise v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302.)

  • 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

RUBY TEXEIRA ET AL. VS MICHAEL SHERRILL ET AL.

Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1033 [attorney fees as damages in malicious prosecution action must be pled and proved at trial].) Here, Defendant does not appear to be seeking attorney fees expended in another case, only fees incurred in defending the current action. Thus, a prayer for attorney fees is unnecessary in either the complaint or the answer.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

VENKAT KONDA V. DEJAN MARKOVIC, ET AL.

The privilege has been held to have “broad application” to any communication and bars all torts arising from the communications, other than malicious prosecution. (Gene Thera, Inc. v. Troy & Gould Professional Corp. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 901, 909, citation omitted.) Communications “directed toward settlement of a pending lawsuit” or an anticipated lawsuit are similarly protected by the privilege.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

POTVIN V. CALTRANS 3-6-20

Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596 (if claims were pled before obtaining justifying support, via investigating and discovery, complainants could be exposed to liability for malicious prosecution). Here, Plaintiff alleges that the new facts were learned in September 2019 and was unable to file the present motion until the Government Tort Claim was rejected. The court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated diligence in filing the present motion after the new facts were learned.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Judge

    Dept. 6

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

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

“Except for an action for malicious prosecution, the privilege under Cal. Civ. Code § 47(2) is absolute and unaffected by malice. The publication need only have a reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it is made… it "applies to virtually all other causes of action, with the exception of an action for malicious prosecution."

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MESBAHI V. EWERT

App. 4th 210, 221-22 (waiver of costs and future malicious prosecution claim had “substantial value”). The fact that defendant obtained a judgment in his favor is ordinarily prima facie evidence of the reasonableness of the offer. Id. at 221; Essex Ins. Co. v. Heck (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1528; Hartline v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 458, 471; but see Najera v. Huerta (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 872, 878-79.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 44     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.