What is a Motion for Malicious Prosecution?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Malicious Prosecution

Recent Rulings on Motion for Malicious Prosecution

FAWAZ ELMASRI VS JUSTIN PAUL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

Even still, that purported abuse of the court’s process in the form of malicious prosecution fails because Rodriguez cannot allege the essential element that Elmasri’s claims in the instant action constitute a prior action that terminated in Rodriguez’s favor. (See Lanz v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DAMONE DANIEL, ET AL. VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.

prosecution; (26) gross negligence: (27) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee; (28) IIED; and (29)-(30) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PORTER VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

The City’s argument would expand section 821.6 immunity well beyond the legislative intent to protect public employees from liability only for malicious prosecution. Here, the claims against the City are not based on the instituting or prosecuting a judicial proceeding. Nor are they based on the police officer’s investigation related to possible criminal charges. As Plaintiffs point out, there was no pending judicial proceeding here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

GIOVANNA WILKERSON VS OCEAN PROPERTIES

Where the eviction arises from the wrongful use of judicial processes the cause of action is one for malicious prosecution.” (Gause v. McClelland (1951) 102 al.App.2d 762, 764; see also Assell v. Rodrigues (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 817, 823 n. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

MELINDA T. AHDOOT VS GARRI CHERNYAVSKIY

Based on the above, the Court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that the discovery stay applies only to the cross-action for malicious prosecution and not to the entirety of proceedings under this case number, 19STLC09649. However, the Court notes that both deposition notices stated the deposition would take place in Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. (Mot. to Compel, Leff Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5, Exhs. A, B.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAMES THEODORE BURGHARDT JR VS BRIGITTE YVON

That case, however, involved a claim for malicious prosecution and discussion of whether there was probable cause to bring the underlying action. It is ultimately unnecessary to engage in a fine analysis of Jarrow and the overlap that any phrases like "probable cause" may have in an anti-SLAPP analysis and a malicious prosecution analysis because, here, Defendant cites Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, which established the "minimal merits" standard.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GIOVANNA WILKERSON VS JON LEVIN

Where the eviction arises from the wrongful use of judicial processes the cause of action is one for malicious prosecution.” (Gause v. McClelland (1951) 102 al.App.2d 762, 764; see also Assell v. Rodrigues (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 817, 823 n. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DAVID ELISHKOV VS THE SMEE TRUST, ET AL.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on July 15, 2020 asserting causes of action for 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Quiet Possession and Enjoyment; 3) Abuse of Process; 4) Malicious Prosecution; and 5) Declaratory Relief. Defendants filed an unlawful detainer case against Plaintiff on December 30, 2019 (19VECV018430), involving the same commercial property in Canoga Park.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSEPH LOH, ET AL. VS ROBERT CARRUTH, ET AL.

Seager as trustee for (1) quiet title, (2) trespass, (3) private nuisance, (4) malicious prosecution, and (5) IIED. Plaintiff argues that it is the owner of the property at 18002 Faysmith Avenue, Torrance and purchased it in 2010. Defendants are owners of property at 18008 Faysmith Avenue and moved in in May 2012. The parties share a fence between the two properties. In summer 2017, R. Carruth approached plaintiff Loh about replacing the fence.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANK STRICK, ET AL. VS ASSAF TARNOPOLSKY, ET AL.

“Wrongful use of civil proceedings” is another phrase for malicious prosecution. (See CACI 1501; see also Curtis v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1243, 1250–51 [“A civil malicious prosecution cause of action is described in the Restatement Second of Torts in a chapter denominated ‘Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings.’”].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

EVANGELICAL BIBLE CHURCH OF SAN DIEGO INC VS HENDRY

The litigation privilege is applied broadly to "communications with 'some relation' to judicial proceedings" with the only exception being malicious prosecution actions. (Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1194.) The litigation privilege "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." (Silberg v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BARKER VS. COHEN

The only exception has been for malicious prosecution actions. (Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1193-94.) The litigation privilege “applies without regard to ‘motives, morals, ethics or intent.’ [Citation.] The litigation privilege is simply a test of connectedness or logical relationship to litigation.” (Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Associates (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1490.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

ANDREW BURKOT VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

(c) This section shall be applicable only on motion made before the discharge of the jury or entry of judgment, and any party requesting the relief pursuant to this section waives any right to seek damages for malicious prosecution. Failure to make the motion shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to pursue a malicious prosecution action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

A party to a dissolution proceeding must “provide funds for the party’s adversary’s litigation costs” under certain circumstances and must “work toward settlement of the litigation,” whereas a party to a malicious prosecution action has an obligation to “refrain from maintaining a malicious and unmerited lawsuit.” (Ibid.) Because both the primary rights and corresponding duties were different, the malicious prosecution action was not barred by res judicata. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

COREY GRAY VS GEORGE GELSEBACH ET AL

On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff Corey Gray commenced this malicious prosecution action against Defendants Goerge Gelsebach, William Vallejos, and Michael Klosk. The complaints allege that Gelsebach and his counsel Vallejos and Klosk filed and prosecuted a series of unlawful detainer actions against Gray without probable cause. On December 12, 2017, Gelsebach filed an anti-SLAPP motion against the FAC. After briefing and hearing on the matter on February 26, 2018, this Court denied the anti-SLAPP.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COREY GRAY VS GEORGE GELSEBACH ET AL

On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff Corey Gray commenced this malicious prosecution action against Defendants Goerge Gelsebach, William Vallejos, and Michael Klosk. The complaints allege that Gelsebach and his counsel Vallejos and Klosk filed and prosecuted a series of unlawful detainer actions against Gray without probable cause. On December 12, 2017, Gelsebach filed an anti-SLAPP motion against the FAC. After briefing and hearing on the matter on February 26, 2018, this Court denied the anti-SLAPP.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CARSON WILD WINGS, LLC VS LEBE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.

“[T]he litigation privilege bars all tort causes of action except malicious prosecution.” (Jacob B. v. County of Shasta (2007) 40 Cal.4th 948, 960.) Otherwise, the privilege “is absolute and applies regardless of malice.” (Id. at p. 955.) Although the litigation privilege applies to claims for tortious interference with contract (See 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 568, 586–87), it generally does not apply to breach of contract claims themselves. (See Crossroads Investors, LP v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

POOPAK KHOSROWSHAHI VS SHAHIDEH KHODADADI, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for malicious prosecution. Asadi’s Motion to Compel Responses Asadi moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Asadi’s (1) Form Interrogatories (FI) Nos. 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1, 10.2, 11.1, 12.1, 12.4, and 17.1 and (2) Special Interrogatories (SI) Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 15-17, 23, 31, 49, 63, and 78.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIANA HYEWON KANG VS HOY QUAN, ET AL.

The California Supreme Court has held that a citizen’s report to the police concerning suspected criminal activity of another person is subject to the absolute privilege, and that “section 47(b) operates to bar civil liability for any tort claim based upon a privileged communication, with the exception of malicious prosecution, whose requirements include malice, lack of probable cause, and termination in the plaintiff’s favor.” Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSB (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 375.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JUSTIN LIU VS JEAN LIU, ET AL.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is for malicious prosecution, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The first two causes of action are against all Defendants. “A plaintiff must plead and prove three elements to establish the tort of malicious prosecution: a lawsuit ‘(1) was commenced by or at the direction of the defendant and was pursued to a legal termination favorable to the plaintiff; (2) was brought without probable cause; and (3) was initiated with malice.’” (Nunez v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TERRY COLE MD VS. TARA J LICATA

Defendants also argue that plaintiff's complaint goes beyond malicious prosecution claims, making section 425.18 inapplicable and entitling defendants to attorney fees. A "SLAPPback" is defined as "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 [s]ection 425.16." (CCP § 425.18, subd. (b)(1).) Clearly, plaintiff's complaint alleges SLAPPback claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

JASON THEIS, ET AL. VS. 157TH R.E. MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

Where the eviction arises from the wrongful use of judicial processes the cause of action is one for malicious prosecution. [Citation.]” (Gause v. McClelland (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 762, 764.) “To sustain a cause of action for malicious prosecution, one of the essential elements is a finding of fact that there was a want of probable cause. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MANUEL BOROBIA VS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., (A "LENDER"), ET AL.

The litigation privilege applies to any and all causes of action except malicious prosecution. (Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSB (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 375.) “A plaintiff cannot establish a probability of prevailing if the litigation privilege precludes the defendant's liability on the claim.” (Digerati Holdings, LLC v. Young Money Entertainment, LLC (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 873, 888.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

MICHAEL DANIELS VS KRISTEN L. ERNEY

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. The privilege applies to 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 [has] some connection or logical relation to the action. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DANIEL GLENN ABRAMS VS CAROLE LIEBERMAN, ET AL.

The privilege is an “absolute” privilege, and it bars all tort causes of action except a claim for malicious prosecution. Id. “[S]ection 47(b) operates to bar civil liability for any tort claim based upon a privileged communication, with the exception of malicious prosecution, whose requirements include malice, lack of probable cause, and termination in the plaintiff's favor.” Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSB (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 375.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.