Motion for Malicious Prosecution in California

What Is a Motion for Malicious Prosecution?

“The common law tort of malicious prosecution originated as a remedy for an individual who had been subjected to a maliciously instituted criminal charge, but in California, as in most common law jurisdictions, the tort was long ago extended to afford a remedy for the malicious prosecution of a civil action.” (Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (2017) 3 Cal.5th 767, 775–776.)

“The malicious commencement of a civil proceeding is actionable because it harms the individual against whom the claim is made, and also because it threatens the efficient administration of justice.

The individual is harmed because he is compelled to defend against a fabricated claim which not only subjects him to the panoply of psychological pressures most civil defendants suffer, but also to the additional stress of attempting to resist a suit commenced out of spite or ill will, often magnified by slanderous allegations in the pleadings.” (Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 50–51.)

“The judicial process is adversely affected by a maliciously prosecuted cause not only by the clogging of already crowded dockets, but by the unscrupulous use of the courts by individuals ‘as instruments with which to maliciously injure their fellow men.’” (Id. at 51.)

“Malicious prosecution actions have traditionally been disfavored as potentially chilling the right to pursue legal redress and report crime.” (Siebel v. Mittlesteadt (2007) 41 Cal.4th 735, 740–741.) “A party filing a malicious prosecution action still faces strict requirements that should militate against an opening of the floodgates for this type of litigation. ‘Concerns over the potential chilling effect... are readily assuaged by stringent enforcement of the probable cause element of the malicious prosecution tort.’ It is up to malicious prosecution plaintiffs to ensure that their lawsuits can survive the rigorous judicial scrutiny given to such actions.” (Id. p. 745.)

Legal Standard

“The tort [of malicious prosecution] consists of three elements. The underlying action must have been:

  1. initiated or maintained by, or at the direction of, the defendant, and pursued to a legal termination in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff;
  2. initiated or maintained without probable cause; and
  3. initiated or maintained with malice.”

(Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (2017) 3 Cal.5th 767, 775–776; Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 50.)

If any of these elements is missing, a malicious prosecution action fails as a matter of law. (Pender v. Radin (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1813-1814.)

Termination in Favor of the Plaintiff

“It is hornbook law that the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action must plead and prove that the prior judicial proceeding of which he complains terminated in his favor.” (Lackner v. LaCroix (1979) 25 Cal.3d 747, 749.)

“It is not essential to maintenance of an action for malicious prosecution that the prior proceeding was favorably terminated following trial on the merits. However, termination must reflect on the merits of the underlying action.” (Id. at p. 750.) “It is apparent ‘favorable’ termination does not occur merely because a party complained against has prevailed in an underlying action. While the fact he has prevailed is an ingredient of a favorable termination, such termination must further reflect on his innocence of the alleged wrongful conduct. If the termination does not relate to the merits reflecting on neither innocence of nor responsibility for the alleged misconduct the termination is not favorable in the sense it would support a subsequent action for malicious prosecution.” (Id. at p. 751.) “Thus, a ‘technical or procedural [termination] as distinguished from a substantive termination’ is not favorable for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim.” (Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun (2004) 32 Cal.4th 336, 342.)

“The tort of malicious prosecution requires the initiation of a full blown action as well as its favorable termination for the malicious prosecution plaintiff; subsidiary procedural actions within a lawsuit such as an application for a restraining order or for a lien will not support a claim of malicious prosecution. The reason the courts have held that a malicious prosecution action cannot be grounded upon actions taken within pending litigation is that permitting such a cause of action would disrupt the ongoing lawsuit by injecting tort claims against the parties’ lawyers and because the appropriate remedy for actions taken within a lawsuit lies in the invocation of the court’s broad powers to control judicial proceedings.” (Adams v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 521, 528; accord, Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 969, fn 8.)

Probable Cause

The probable cause element of the malicious prosecution claim “calls on the trial court to make an objective determination of the ‘reasonableness’ of the defendant’s conduct, i.e., to determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable. The resolution of that question of law calls for the application of an objective standard to the facts on which the defendant acted. Because the malicious prosecution tort is intended to protect an individual’s interest ‘in freedom from unjustifiable and unreasonable litigation’, if the trial court determines that the prior action was objectively reasonable, the plaintiff has failed to meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating an absence of probable cause and the defendant is entitled to prevail.” (Sheldon Appeal Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 878.)

“In determining whether the prior action was legally tenable, i.e., whether the action was supported by probable cause, the court is to construe the allegations of the underlying complaint liberally, in a light most favorable to the malicious prosecution defendant.” (Yee v. Cheung (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 184, 200.) “Probable cause is present unless any reasonable attorney would agree that the action is totally and completely without merit.” (Roberts v. Sentry Life Ins. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 375, 382.) The probable cause determination depends on what was known by the litigant or attorney at the relevant time, either when the action was filed or when the malicious prosecution plaintiff asserts prosecution of the action became ‘malicious.’” (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 868; Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 973.)

Malice

The malice element for the malicious prosecution claim “relates to the subjective intent or purpose with which the defendant acted in initiating prior action. The motive of the defendant must have been something other than that of bringing a perceived guilty person to justice or the satisfaction in a civil action of some personal or financial purpose. The plaintiff must plead and prove actual ill will or some improper ulterior motive. It may range anywhere from open hostility to indifference.” (Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 478, 484.)

Factors relevant to malice include the defendant's subjective belief regarding the validity of the claim, and (in the case of malicious prosecution against the attorney) the extent of any research or investigation by the attorney prosecuting the prior suit. (Id. at p. 883.)

Malice may not be inferred from a lack of probable cause alone, since whether the underlying action lacked legal tenability, as measured objectively, does not “logically or reasonably permit the inference that such lack of probable cause was accompanied by the actor's subjective malicious state of mind.” (Id. at 498-499.) “In other words, the presence of malice must be established by other, additional evidence.” (Sheldon Appel, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 498.) Such other evidence “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.” (Sierra Club Foundation v. Graham (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1157 [85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726].)

Because direct evidence of malice is rarely available, “malice is usually proven by circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence.” (HMS Capital Inc. v. Layers Title Company (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 204.)

Statute of Limitations

For malicious prosecution, the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entry of judgment in the trial court. (Bob Baker Enterprises, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 678, 683.)

Damages

“Damages in malicious prosecution actions are similar to those in defamation. Therefore, damage to one's reputation can be presumed from a charge, such as that in the instant case that a person committed the crime of theft.” (Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 450.) “A plaintiff who successfully asserts a malicious prosecution claim can obtain reasonable attorney fees incurred defending against the prior action, and may also recover compensation for injury to reputation or impairment of social and business standing in the community.” (Sycamore Ridge Apartments LLC v. Naumann (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1412.)

Rulings for Motion for Malicious Prosecution in California

Plaintiff argues that his malicious prosecution claim does not arise from a protected activity because the alleged malicious prosecution was part of a scheme to pressure Plaintiff into releasing his wage and hour claims in the Sonic Action. The Court finds this argument unconvincing. Plaintiff’s arguments speak more to the merits of his malicious prosecution claim, particularly in proving the “malice” element.

  • Name

    JOSE MONTERROSA VS HILA ELIMELECH ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC624522

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2016

Plaintiff argues that his malicious prosecution claim does not arise from a protected activity because the alleged malicious prosecution was part of a scheme to pressure Plaintiff into releasing his wage and hour claims in the Sonic Action. The Court finds this argument unconvincing. Plaintiff’s arguments speak more to the merits of his malicious prosecution claim, particularly in proving the “malice” element.

  • Name

    JOSE MONTERROSA VS HILA ELIMELECH ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC624522

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2016

“A party filing a malicious prosecution action still faces strict requirements that should militate against an opening of the floodgates for this type of litigation. [Citation.] ‘Concerns over the potential chilling effect . . . are readily assuaged by stringent enforcement of the probable cause element of the malicious prosecution tort.’ [Citation.] It is up to malicious prosecution plaintiffs to ensure that their lawsuits can survive the rigorous judicial scrutiny given to such actions.”

  • Name

    JOEL DRUM VS ELLIS LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STLC10160

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

I. 1 st step—Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution cause of action arises from protected conduct under CCP §425.16(e)(1) and (2) By definition, malicious prosecution causes of action arise from protected conduct and is subject to SLAPP pursuant to CCP §§425.16(e)(1) and (2). Plaintiff does not challenge the applicability of SLAPP to her malicious prosecution claim.

  • Name

    MANSOUREH MARY DADYAN VS KOUROSH LAALY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV00642

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Defendant Givens simply fails to present any material fact or evidence that would negate any element of the malicious prosecution claim.

  • Name

    BRUCE LANDAU VS DERMOT GIVENS, ET AL.,

  • Case No.

    SC125408

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

Moriel’s demurrer to plaintiff Model Builders, Inc.’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Malicious Prosecution Pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16 is granted. Defendants met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s sole cause of action for malicious prosecution arose from an act in furtherance of the defendants’ right of petition or free speech.

  • Name

    MODEL BUILDERS, INC. VS. BLUEGILL CONSTRUCTION, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00871330-CU-MC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2017

Not Of Mot And Mot To Stay Action; Mp&As Decl COURT ON OWN MOTION PURSUANT TO CCP 1048 SEVERS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM FROM CONSOLIDATED CASES 319413 AND 324417 AND CONSOLIDATES SAID CLAIM FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WITH THE INSTANT ACTION 407612. COURT THEN STAYS NEWLY CONSOLIDATED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CASES TO PERMIT RESOLUTION OF UNDERLYING BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION. (PB)

  • Name

    ALBERT SETO ET AL VS. THE MEDLIN REAL ESTATE LAW GROUP ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC02407612

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2002

These differences supported allowing a malicious prosecution following a favorable termination of a judicial arbitration, and not allowing a malicious prosecution claim based on the outcome a private, contractual arbitration: Permitting such terminations to support a claim of malicious prosecution furthers the public purpose underlying the cause of action--namely to discourage abuse of the judicial system by the bringing of maliciously motivated but baseless claims. [Citation omitted.]

  • Name

    KATHLEEN TARR VS. JOHNSON

  • Case No.

    MSC20-00950

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

Fifth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress: Plaintiff’s claim is based entirely on Le’s alleged malicious prosecution. Complaint, ¶ 40. Because plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on his malicious prosecution claim, plaintiff will not be able to prevail on this claim. In addition, plaintiff offers no evidence to show Le owed him any legal duty.

  • Name

    BONILLA VS. LE

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00883369-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2017

Moriel’s (1) demurrer to first amended complaint for malicious prosecution and (2) motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s first amended complaint for malicious prosecution are moot in light of the Court’s 6/30/2017 Order granting defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiff’s first amended complaint for malicious prosecution pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16. All future hearing dates are hereby vacated. Defendants to give notice.

  • Name

    MODEL BUILDERS, INC. VS. BLUEGILL CONSTRUCTION, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00871330

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2017

Indeed, as the Court in Navellier observed, “nothing prevented plaintiffs from timely alleging a malicious prosecution claim,” the same holds true in this case, and plaintiffs cannot may not now attempt to assert a claim for malicious prosecution claim in order to side-step the adverse ruling as to the Attorney Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.

  • Name

    MICHELE TRUJILLO VS KRISTINA TRUJILLO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV07116

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Petition For Reinstatement Of Malicious Prosecution Action Off Calendared 9/16/1996, Unsealing Remittitur Issued In A080555 On January 2000, Termination Of Jcc3216 Legal Reprsentation Dispute Cases Under Rule 1545, California Rules Of Court, Title Five, Special Rules For Trial Courts, Request For Casefile To Be Retained By The Court Clerk For Final Disposition Of Malicious Prosecution Action Set for hearing on Monday, September 10, 2018, Line 8, PLAINTIFF ASHA MANSINGHKA's Petition For Reinstatement Of Malicious

  • Name

    MANSINGHKA VS BRODSKY

  • Case No.

    CGC95970363

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

  • Judge

    ANNE-CHRISTINE MASSULLO

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Section 47(b) bars all tort causes of action except malicious prosecution. (See Hagberg, supra, 32 Cal.4th at 360; see also Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 666[2].) Here, Plaintiff asserts claims for malicious prosecution. Thus, litigation privilege does not bar Plaintiff’s claims for malicious prosecution against Alvarez or the other defendants. ii. Res Judicata Defendants next argue that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata.

  • Name

    AUSTIN BAUL VS MARIANO ALVAREZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC695684

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

Malicious Prosecution Claim “‘The common law tort of malicious prosecution originated as a remedy for an individual who had been subjected to a maliciously instituted criminal charge, but in California, as in most common law jurisdictions, the tort was long ago extended to afford a remedy for the malicious prosecution of a civil action.’ [Citation.] The tort consists of three elements.

  • Name

    JOEL DRUM VS ELLIS LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STLC10160

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Malicious Prosecution Claim “‘The common law tort of malicious prosecution originated as a remedy for an individual who had been subjected to a maliciously instituted criminal charge, but in California, as in most common law jurisdictions, the tort was long ago extended to afford a remedy for the malicious prosecution of a civil action.’ [Citation.] The tort consists of three elements.

  • Name

    JOEL DRUM VS ELLIS LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STLC10160

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thus, a malicious prosecution action is subject to a section 425.16 special motion to strike. Defendant has thus met its threshold burden, and the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to establish a probability of prevailing on their malicious prosecution claim. Once the defendant has met its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that there is a probability it will prevail on its claim. (Code Civ.

  • Name

    KONG VS. YANG

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01092654

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

Defendants satisfied their burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis that the malicious prosecution claim arises from activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. However, plaintiffs Michael and Meehyun Kurtzman satisfied their burden under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis that there is minimal merit to their malicious prosecution claim.

  • Name

    MICHAEL R KURTZMAN ET AL VS. STEVE SISLER ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC16551654

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s government claim, the date of damage or injury for all claims except malicious prosecution is 2/15/18. (FAC, Ex.A, p.2) Plaintiff did not file his government claim until 3/15/19, more than six months later. (Compl. ¶12, Ex.A; FAC ¶12). The claim was returned as untimely for all claims, except malicious prosecution. (Compl. ¶12, Ex.A; FAC ¶12). As such, the claim to discharge mandatory duty is barred.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19CHCV00862

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process There is no dispute that a claim for malicious prosecution arises from the Defendants petitioning activity before the Court. Pursuant to Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 728, 734-735, by its terms, section 425.16 potentially may apply to every malicious prosecution action, because every such action arises from an underlying lawsuit, or petition to the judicial branch.

  • Name

    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.

  • Case No.

    23LBCV00093

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant Sorley asserts Plaintiffs cause of action for malicious prosecution/SLAPP-back fails to state sufficient facts. CCP § 425.18 provides in pertinent part, (a) The Legislature finds and declares that a SLAPPback is distinguishable in character and origin from the ordinary malicious prosecution action.

  • Name

    SAUL LARNER VS P. CHRISTOPHER SORLEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV36561

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The 3rd cause of action for malicious prosecution fails because no favorable termination on the merits is alleged. Three elements must be pleaded for a malicious prosecution cause of action: (1) a lawsuit was commenced by the defendant which was pursued to a legal termination in plaintiff's favor; (2) the prior lawsuit was brought without probable cause; and (3) the prior lawsuit was initiated with malice. (Daniels v. Robbins (2010) 182 Cal. App. 4th 204, 216.)

  • Name

    NEWMEYER & DILLION VS. VANEFSKY

  • Case No.

    30-2013-00651441-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2017

Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress allegations are based solely on the alleged malicious prosecution, and thus accepting plaintiff’s argument would mean that every malicious prosecution is an intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is not the law. Plaintiff’s punitive damage allegations are sufficient only against Keighobad and only as to malicious prosecution.

  • Name

    KEYGHOBAD VS. KEIGHOBAD

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00825639-CU-NP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2017

The plaintiff shall be allowed to file an amended complaint adding a cause of action for malicious prosecution not later than August 15, 2018.

  • Name

    MUST THEREFORE DEMONSTRATE A PROBABILITY OF PREVAILING ON THESE CLAIMS. THE PAIN AND SUFFERING

  • Case No.

    15CV00274

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

Despite this language, plaintiff attempts to recast the claims against the Nohrs as ones involving video/audio recording near plaintiff’s property as “the basis for the malicious prosecution cause of action . . . .” Plaintiff confuses the theory underling the malicious prosecution with the evidence offered in support (i.e., the audio/visual recording). The latter is not a theory of malicious prosecution, but evidence that would support the theory. The language in the operative pleading is pellucid.

  • Name

    JULIA DISIENO VS MARY NOHR ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV02397

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

Joint Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Complaint For Malicious Prosecution And Constructive Fraud, Conspire To Defraud, And Fraudulent Transfers. Matter on calendar for Monday, February 23 2015, Line 7, DEFENDANT DEMAS YAN, CHEUK YAN Joint Motion To Strike Complaint For Malicious Prosecution And Constructive Fraud, Conspire To Defraud, And Fraudulent Transfers. Motion denied.

  • Name

    CRYSTAL LEI ET AL VS. DEMAS W YAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14541875

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2015

Notice Of Hearing On Demurrer To Complaint For Malicious Prosecution DEFENDANTS ADVERTISING DISPLAY SYSTEMS, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL, RAYMOND REUDY, MARK HICKS and GERALD MURPHY'S Demurrer To Complaint For Malicious Prosecution -- Continued to 2-4-04 per Court's own motion. (302/AJR)

  • Name

    CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR,INC.,A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS. ADVERTISING DISPLAY SYSTEMS,A CALIFORNIA GENERAL ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC03425494

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2003

If Defendant Jay Francis and the other Defendants acted in a way that meets the elements for a cause of action for malicious prosecution, they can be liable for such action(s).

  • Name

    JAMES A. KAY, JR., ET AL. VS LEVI LESCHES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV01142

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In this case, plaintiff asserts a "cause of action for malicious prosecution . . . 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." (See CCP § 425.18, subd. (b)(1).) Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that defendants have not met their burden to show that the plaintiff's malicious prosecution action arises from protected activity.

  • Name

    LAUREL GREENSTEIN VS. ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUDD & ROMO

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00372462-CU-NP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2010

Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1571-74, the court held that as a matter of law, a malicious prosecution claim cannot be based on an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a civil harassment restraining order. The same logic applies at least as strongly to DVROs. Indeed, as the Siam court noted, all proceedings in family law are similarly exempt from malicious prosecution claims. Id. at 1571-72, discussing Bidna v. Rosen (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 27. A DVRO is classified as a form of family-law proceeding.

  • Name

    GATEE ESMAT VS. ZHENUS WAHIDI

  • Case No.

    MSC17-01592

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2018

In opposition, IDS concedes that the Policy’s “personal injury” provision provides coverage for malicious prosecution actions.

  • Name

    BERGMAN DACEY GOLDSMITH VS STACY GORDON ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC621786

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2017

He further stated that he would dismiss the malicious prosecution cause of action, and only intended to oppose the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the IIED cause of action. Despite the Court having granted Plaintiffs’ request for a continuance so that he could file an opposition, he has not done so. Nor has he dismissed Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution cause of action.

  • Name

    DOMINIQUE EVANS ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC696951

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

It is hornbook law that the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action must plead and prove that the prior judicial proceeding of which he complains terminated in his favor. ( Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal.3d 841, 845.) Defendant failed to plead a cause of action for malicious prosecution because he did not establish a favorable termination of the Plaintiffs suit.

  • Name

    CECILIA ROBLEDO VS JENNY MILNER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21PSCV00702

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Notice Of Special Motion To Strike Malicious Prosecution Claim; Request For Judicial Notice SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, LINE 9. DEFENDANT ANITA MARGRILL'S Special Motion To Strike Malicious Prosecution Claim IS OFF CALENDAR PER COURT'S JULY 12, 2OO7 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S UNTIMELY SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE. =(302/PJM)

  • Name

    MOLLY PETTIT VS. ANITA MARGRILL ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07459506

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2007

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Complaint For Malicious Prosecution And Constructive Fraud And False Claim, Conspire To Defraud, And Fraudulent Transfers Set for hearing on Wednesday, February 3, 2016, Line 18, DEFENDANT CHEUK YAN'S Motion To Strike Complaint For Malicious Prosecution And Constructive Fraud And False Claim, Conspire To Defraud, And Fraudulent Transfers. Defendant Cheuk Yin Yan's anti-SLAPP motion to strike is denied.

  • Name

    TONY FU VS. DEMAS YAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15549575

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2016

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the first element of a malicious prosecution claim. b.

  • Name

    JAMES A. KAY, JR., ET AL. VS LEVI LESCHES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV01142

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Though this court need not go any further, there is also authority suggesting that Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim is barred for other reasons. In Bidna v. Rosen (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 27, the Court established a bright-line rule refusing to extend the tort of malicious prosecution to motions and orders to show cause in family law proceedings.

  • Name

    ASHLEY JORDAN WALLENS VS IDOYA URRUTIA

  • Case No.

    22STCV13521

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In order to maintain an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that there was a favorable termination of the underlying litigation. This requirement is an essential element of the tort of malicious prosecution, and it is strictly enforced. Where the underlying litigation ends by way of a negotiated settlement, there is no favorable termination for the purposes of pursuing a malicious prosecution action. Ferreira v.

  • Name

    ANDREA JOY COOK, ET AL. VS DANIEL Y. ZOHAR, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV01778

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Notice Of Motion And Motion Seeking Sanctions Against Defendants Berko And Oman For Harassment, Malicious Prosecution, And Collusion ; Declaration And Proof Of Service SET FOR HEARING ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2009, LINE 6, DEFENDANT LARRY DUBAN'S Motion Seeking Sanctions Against Defendants Berko And Oman For Harassment, Malicious Prosecution, And Collusion. MOTION DENIED. INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS OR AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT RELIEF REQUESTED. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY VS. LARRY DUBAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08476380

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2009

By its terms, section 425.16 potentially applies to every malicious prosecution action, because every such action arises from an underlying lawsuit, or petition to the judicial branch. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 728, 734, 735. Accordingly, malicious prosecution causes of action fall within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute. Id. at 735.

  • Name

    DIRECT LIST LLC VS VISTAGE INTERNATIONAL INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00035249-CU-FR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

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)

  • Name

    MARK J. MACCARRA BUILDERS,INC ET AL VS. RON VIDAL ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC03416896

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2003

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 15, 2020 line 8. is SUSTAINED with leave to amend for Plaintiff to allege in good faith (1) facts establishing that CC 47(b) privilege does not bar Plaintiff's causes of action, except malicious prosecution; and (2) facts showing that the underlying action ended in Plaintiff's favor within the meaning of malicious prosecution cause of action. =(501/CFH)

  • Name

    ELAINE DOWELL VS. KORENE TOM ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC20586496

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

[T]he one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 340.6, subdivision (a) applies to a claim for malicious prosecution brought against an attorney that is based on that attorney's participation in the litigation that forms the basis of the malicious prosecution claim. ( Yee v. Cheung (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 184, 194. See also Connelly v.

  • Name

    ELVIR BABAKHANLOO, ET AL. VS KAREN BAGDOYAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV28247

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings As To Second Cause Of Action For Malicious Prosecution Set for hearing on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, line 6, DEFENDANT DANIEL BERKO'S Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings As To Second Cause Of Action For Malicious Prosecution. Motion is Granted with ten days leave to amend the first cause of action to include the CCP section 998 allegation from the second cause of action. =(302/CWW/VC)

  • Name

    KENNETH M. WESLEY VS. ART GALLAGER ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08472032

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2009

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that it had obtained a favorable termination of the underlying action “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.

  • Name

    SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MARIA SEDIGHIM

  • Case No.

    21STCV02141

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

[3] The Court further notes that the malicious prosecution claim discussed in Drummond was initiated after the underlying judgment was already on appeal. ( See Drummond, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 445.)

  • Name

    PAULA R. GREEN VS WARRINER GREEN & RILEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV09969

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

These matters may also support Defendant Oh’s positions regarding the malicious prosecution claim. Pursuant to CCP § 425.16, the Court now orders the Complaint stricken as to Defendant Oh. Moving party shall give notice. As to Defendant Young: Defendant Young’s joinder in the special motion to strike the Complaint is granted. (CCP § 425.16; Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654.)

  • Name

    SUN MAITA, INC. VS MAITA

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00981086-CU-NP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

The first prong is met, as the malicious prosecution claim arises from protected activity. (See Daniels v. Robbin (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 204, 215, "The plain language of the anti-SLAPP statute dictates that every claim of malicious prosecution is a cause of action arising from protected activity because every such claim necessarily depends upon written and oral statements in a prior judicial proceeding.") The burden thus shifts to Plaintiffs to establish a probability of prevailing.

  • Name

    NICK C GRAY ET AL VS. MARGARET L NARRON ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14540464

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2014

App. 4th 1083, 1087-88 (2001)], the Defendant has satisfied his burden of proof that Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for malicious prosecution is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16; Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for malicious prosecution is an action based upon the Defendant’s right to petition the Court for redress and any judicial filing satisfies the public issue requirement. Cal.Civ. Pro. Code §425.16(b)(1), (e)(1).

  • Name

    T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS VS ANDREW LIEBICH AKA DREW LIEBIG

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UD-2018-0000347

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2018

The information sought in the civil subpoena duces tecum has no relevance to the instant complaint for malicious prosecution. The only discovery that Defendant can conduct is to defend himself against the malicious prosecution complaint. Whatever Plaintiff may or may not be doing now has no bearing on what Plaintiff may or may not have done in 2014 or 2015 and which formed the basis of Defendant's two prior lawsuits.

  • Name

    INNOVATIVE FEDERAL OPERATIONS GROUP (IFOG) VS. SINGH

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00006886-CU-NP-NC

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2017

Here, the Court finds Plaintiffs evidence to be sufficient to show a probability of success as to malicious prosecution.

  • Name

    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NESSAH EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION VS SHAHIN SADIK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV11232

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Notably, although the Complaint alleges causes of action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy and infliction of emotional distress, the gravamen of all the claims is malicious prosecution. The phrase “injury to the person” in the venue statute has been narrowly construed by case law. In Monk v.

  • Name

    AURORA LEMERE, ET AL. VS LISA JEWETT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STLC03658

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Malicious Prosecution As set forth by Defendants, a malicious prosecution claim requires a plaintiff to allege that 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. Pennisi (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 861, 872-873.)

  • Name

    DUNCAN V. MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH, LLP ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CECG02381

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2018

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings of the 1 st cause of action for malicious prosecution on the same grounds raised in the prior demurrer—Plaintiffs’ inability or failure to establish each element of a malicious prosecution claim. As with the motion for reconsideration, Defendants fail to cite any material change in applicable case law or statute since the Court’s ruling on 3-16-21.

  • Name

    KASRA VAHMI, ET AL. VS WILLIAM JARRELL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00691

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

These causes of action are clear in referring to a single lawsuit underlying the claim for malicious prosecution by the specific Sutter County Superior Court case number. General demurrer to malicious prosecution causes of action (1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th c.as) Defendants assert these causes of action fail to state a cause of action “if” the conservatorship action is a basis of the claim.

  • Name

    MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

  • Case No.

    20CV02316

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

These causes of action are clear in referring to a single lawsuit underlying the claim for malicious prosecution by the specific Sutter County Superior Court case number. General demurrer to malicious prosecution causes of action (1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th c.as) Defendants assert these causes of action fail to state a cause of action “if” the conservatorship action is a basis of the claim.

  • Name

    MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

  • Case No.

    20CV02316

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

These causes of action are clear in referring to a single lawsuit underlying the claim for malicious prosecution by the specific Sutter County Superior Court case number. General demurrer to malicious prosecution causes of action (1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th c.as) Defendants assert these causes of action fail to state a cause of action “if” the conservatorship action is a basis of the claim.

  • Name

    MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

  • Case No.

    20CV02316

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

These causes of action are clear in referring to a single lawsuit underlying the claim for malicious prosecution by the specific Sutter County Superior Court case number. General demurrer to malicious prosecution causes of action (1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th c.as) Defendants assert these causes of action fail to state a cause of action “if” the conservatorship action is a basis of the claim.

  • Name

    MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

  • Case No.

    20CV02316

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

These causes of action are clear in referring to a single lawsuit underlying the claim for malicious prosecution by the specific Sutter County Superior Court case number. General demurrer to malicious prosecution causes of action (1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th c.as) Defendants assert these causes of action fail to state a cause of action “if” the conservatorship action is a basis of the claim.

  • Name

    MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

  • Case No.

    20CV02316

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Leoni’s Malicious Prosecution Complaint Arises from a Protected Activity Here, Defendants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that Leoni’s malicious prosecution complaint arises from a protected activity as the basis for a malicious prosecution is the underlying action.

  • Name

    LEONI VS BIRNBERG

  • Case No.

    SCV-270645

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2023

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

The unclean hands defense in a malicious prosecution claim is not limited to a party’s justification for filing a malicious prosecution action, but rather, “unclean hands concerns the far broader question of a party’s misconduct in the matter.” (Kendall at 986.)

  • Name

    HASHEMI VS. ZARNEGAR

  • Case No.

    MSC16-00637

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

In opposition, Plaintiffs also cite to Jackson to argue that they sufficiently plead damages in their malicious prosecution claim because attorney’s fees are not the only recoverable damages in a malicious prosecution action. (Opp., pp. 3:26-4:2.)

  • Name

    BAGRAT OGANNES, ET AL. VS ARMEN KAVOUKJIAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV07228

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

However, additional authority shows the DVROs cannot form the basis of a malicious prosecution action: “The tort of malicious prosecution requires the initiation of a full-blown action as well as its favorable termination for the malicious prosecution plaintiff; subsidiary procedural actions within a lawsuit such as the application for a restraining order or for a lien will not support a claim for malicious prosecution. [Citations.]

  • Name

    JEFFREY J OLIN VS STEVEN SCOTT SILVER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV25223

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Sandra Hogan LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 741 [“For all these reasons, we decline to create a categorical exemption from the anti-SLAPP statute for malicious prosecution causes of action. Accordingly, we hold that this action is not exempt from anti-SLAPP scrutiny merely because it is one for malicious prosecution. If on reflection the Legislature desires to create an exemption for malicious prosecution claims, it may easily do so.”].)

  • Name

    PIERRE RICHARD VS JAMES A FRIEDEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV44270

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

Plaintiff alleges defendants convinced her to file a malicious prosecution claim, which was dismissed in February 2020 via an anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to advise her of the risk that her malicious prosecution claim would be defeated by a successful anti-SLAPP motion and failed to inform her that members of their firm had been disbarred and/or subject to bar discipline. Defendants demur on statute of limitations grounds.

  • Name

    MARJAN GARMESTANI, DDS VS LA LAW, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV00549

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they can establish a necessary element of the malicious prosecution claim (favorable termination), and thus, Plaintiffs cannot establish probability of prevailing on the malicious prosecution claim.

  • Name

    WILLIE F. MCMULLEN, JR., ET AL. VS ANA WARD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV38469

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

Fiola filed this malicious prosecution action against Defendants Henry Darshad, Lorraine Anderson, Estate of Henry Houshang Darshad, and Goldie Marshall. The complaint alleges two causes of action for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). This action is related to case no. 20SMCV01632.

  • Name

    MICHELLE FARRELL, ET AL. VS HENRY DARSHAD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV00212

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The court notes that proceedings in small claims court cannot form the basis for a malicious prosecution action. Pace v. Hillcrest Motor Co. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 476. In any event plaintiff’s opposition fails to address the propriety of this cause of action. Consequently, the motion to strike is granted as to plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for malicious prosecution.

  • Name

    YOUMAN, GREG, ET AL VS. SHELLEY, ERIC

  • Case No.

    S-CV-0040291

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2018

Protected Activity Plaintiff concedes the malicious prosecution claim is subject to the instant anti-SLAPP motion because it constitutes protected speech. (Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 734-735 (“by its terms, section 425.16 potentially may apply to every malicious prosecution action because every such action arises from an underlying lawsuit, or petition to the judicial branch.”) Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show probability of prevailing. 2.

  • Name

    WELLS VS CCF YANIS INC

  • Case No.

    CVSW2208393

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The cause of action for malicious prosecution implicates CCP 425.16 [anti-SLAPP statute]. See Daniels v. Robbins (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 204, 215 ("The plain language of the anti-SLAPP statute dictates that every claim of malicious prosecution is a cause of action arising from protected activity because every such claim necessarily depends upon written and oral statements in a prior judicial proceeding.") The opposing party (Mr. York Liu) fails to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Mr.

  • Name

    JAMES H LIU MD VS. YORK H LIU ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC12527445

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2014

Ntc Of Special Mtn To Strike Complaint For Malicious Prosecution SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2008 LINE 11. DEFENDANT ROBERT HUBERMAN'S Special MOTION To Strike Complaint For Malicious Prosecution IS GRANTED. THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS PROBABLE CAUSE BY WELCH TO SEEK DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL CODE SECTION 3346. THE COURT FINDS THAT A REASONABLE ATTORNEY WOULD FIND THAT SECTION 3346 WOULD SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO THE VINES AND THE TREE LIMB ON THE WELCH PROPERTY.

  • Name

    RAYMOND STEFFEN VS. ROBERT HUBERMAN

  • Case No.

    CGC07468932

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2008

Plaintiffs’ FAC fails to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution against County Defendants because they are statutorily immune from liability for such action.” (Motion, p. 5:18-23 [citing FAC, ¶¶ 7-8, 10, 12, 13].)

  • Name

    DOMINIQUE EVANS ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC696951

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2019

However, those who play an "instrumental role" in causing the underlying action to be filed may be liable for malicious prosecution. Dickens v. Provident Life And Acc. Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 705, 717. Plaintiff seeks to distinguish this case from a malicious prosecution action by arguing the true nature of the claim is for conspiracy.

  • Name

    JANICE A CAPPITELLI VS. GIUSEPPINA M SIMONE

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00018707-CU-NP-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2017

Importantly, the litigation privilege does not apply to a claim for malicious prosecution. (See Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 216; see also Kenne v. Stennis (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 953, 965 [litigation privilege is absolute and bars all tort causes of action except malicious prosecution privilege].)

  • Name

    ACTIVE MOBILITY CENTER INC VS SHALIKAR

  • Case No.

    CVRI2103801

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2021

Plaintiff has also demonstrated that this request for leave to amend could not have been brought earlier, as it is based on a determination of ascertainable damages relating to Plaintiff’s defense of the malicious prosecution cross-complaint. The malicious prosecution cross-complaint was not resolved in the Unlawful Detainer Action until January 13, 2017. (Id. at ¶8.) Plaintiff then filed the instant motion on March 30, 2017.

  • Name

    JUNDY, LOWELL VS KLOSK, MICHAEL J

  • Case No.

    15K14952

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

If the termination does not relate to the meritsreflecting on neither innocence of nor responsibility for the alleged misconductthe termination is not favorable in the sense it would support a subsequent action for malicious prosecution. Thus, a technical or procedural termination as distinguished from a substantive termination is not favorable for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim.

  • Name

    GEORGE GEMAYEL, ET AL. VS JAMES SHALVOY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV37085

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Superior Court (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 166, 185 Plaintiffs’ conspiracy and emotional distress causes of action are derivative of their caus of action for malicious prosecution, as the allegedly malicious prosecution of the underlyin lawsuit is alleged as the wrongful act in furtherance of the conspiracy and the cause of Plaintiffs emotional distress. Plaintiffs have therefore demonstrated a probability of prevailing on thes causes of action as well.

  • Name

    COLE V KISER

  • Case No.

    18CV02328

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2020

  • Judge

    : Timothy Volkmann</p>

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

As a result, Plaintiff cannot show a favorable termination of the underlying claim because a dismissal due to settlement does not qualify as the favorable termination element of a malicious prosecution claim. See George F. Hillenbrand, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 784, 799.

  • Name

    GREGORY THOMAS VS HENRY L. SELF III, ET AL

  • Case No.

    SC128720

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2018

Joint Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Complaint For Malicious Prosecution And Constructive Fraud, Conspire To Defraud, And Fraudulent Transfers. Matter on calendar for Friday, January 23, 2015, Line 11, DEFENDANT DEMAS YAN, CHEUK YAN Joint Motion To Strike Complaint For Malicious Prosecution And Constructive Fraud, Conspire To Defraud, And Fraudulent Transfers. The matter is continued on the Court's own motion to February 9, 2015.

  • Name

    CRYSTAL LEI ET AL VS. DEMAS W YAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14541875

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2015

A private person may be held liable for malicious prosecution under certain circumstances based on his or her role in the criminal proceeding. (Zucchet, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1481.) To determine whether a private person may incur liability for malicious prosecution, the test is whether the defendant was actively instrumental in causing the prosecution. (Ibid.)

  • Name

    JULIA DISIENO VS MARY NOHR ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV02397

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

The court concludes that plaintiff's complaint does not plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution in that there is no "favorable termination" of the underlying proceeding. To establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove that the underlying action was (1) terminated in the plaintiff's favor, (2) prosecuted without probable cause, and (3) initiated with malice. (Franklin Mint Co. v.

  • Name

    LAUREL GREENSTEIN VS. ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUDD & ROMO

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00372462-CU-NP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2010

Attorneys’ fees may constitute an element of damages in a malicious prosecution suit, so the prayer for attorneys’ fees will be allowed to stay for now. Plaintiff has 20 days to amend the pleading or elect to proceed on the remaining causes of action.

  • Name

    MOHAMMAD ORDOUBADI VS. YOUSSEF MIKHAIL, ET AL

  • Case No.

    LC105320

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2018

"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.

  • Name

    JO CHAMPA VS GINA CUCINIELLLO

  • Case No.

    SC126384

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2017

The burden then shifts to Plaintiffs to demonstrate the probability that they will prevail on the merits of the subject cause of action herein, i.e., malicious prosecution. Based on the evidence submitted, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the malicious prosecution claim is legally sufficient and supported by a prima facie showing of facts sufficient to support a favorable judgment if their evidence is credited. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89.)

  • Name

    SCHALI, FRITZ VS MAISETTI, PATSY

  • Case No.

    CV-23-003795

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2023

  • County

    Stanislaus County, CA

The demurrer is directed to the second cause of action only (and not to the first cause of action for malicious prosecution). The litigation privilege of Civil Code § 47(b) applies to all tort causes of action except malicious prosecution. (See Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205; Jacob v. County of Shasta (2007) 40 Cal.4th 948; Rosenthal v. Irell & Manella (1982) 135 Cal.Ap.3d 121).

  • Name

    LAUREL GREENSTEIN VS. ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUDD & ROMO

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00372462-CU-NP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2010

By no later than February 26, 2021 Plaintiff to submit a supplemental brief not to exceed 2 pages (1) expressly stating if any claims are brought by Lillian (opposition suggests both that they are and they are not, compare "[Lillian] not be deprived her day in Court on her Malicious Prosecution claim" and "there is only one plaintiff, [James], for himself and his minor child.") and (2) provide citations to cases where Plaintiffs, situated as Lillian, were found to have standing to proceed with malicious prosecution

  • Name

    JAMES WANNINGER ET AL VS. 195-205 TAMAL VISTA BLVD LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC20583858

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Explanation: Malicious Prosecution: “To establish a cause of action for the malicious prosecution of a civil proceeding, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the prior action (1) was commenced by or at the direction of the defendant and was pursued to a legal termination in his, plaintiff's, favor [citations]; (2) was brought without probable cause [citations]; and (3) was initiated with malice [citations].” (Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 50.)

  • Name

    GREENE V. SCHELLENBERG

  • Case No.

    16CECG04085

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2018

However, Aguilar’s argument does not address the allegations of the FAC and whether they are legally tenable to allege a malicious prosecution claim. At the pleading stage, the Court will not construe Judge Hofer’s language in the Underlying Action as dispositive of whether a malicious prosecution action is proper or improper.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    BC690062

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

Because Cross-Complainant must demonstrate that the case in which malicious prosecution is alleged ended in his favor, there can be no cross-action for malicious prosecution within the same action. (See Jenkins v. Pope (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1299-1300.) Clearly, as there has been no termination of this action, let alone one favorable to Cross-Complainant, the cause of action for malicious prosecution does not allege all the elements of the claim.

  • Name

    BRANDIE DEVALL, ET AL. VS DANIEL THOMPSON

  • Case No.

    18STLC04621

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Naumann (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1411-1412 [to be granted monetary relief, a malicious prosecution plaintiff must prove damages].) Whether the Federal Action was terminated in the Rikers’ favor. “One of the requirements for malicious prosecution is ‘favorable termination’ of the prior action reflecting its lack of merit. A voluntary dismissal may be ambiguous as to the merits of the action[].” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc.

  • Name

    KAREN M. RIKER, ET AL. V. DAVID L. HAGAN

  • Case No.

    19CV-0494

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

Malicious Prosecution Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to provide proof of malicious prosecution. While, again, Plaintiffs have no burden to prove their allegations at the pleading stage, the Court agrees that, even accepted as true, Plaintiffs allegations, as pled, could not state a claim for malicious prosecution.

  • Name

    COURTNEY GREGORY, ET AL. VS ONE THOUSAND GRAND AVENUE HOLDINGS LLC

  • Case No.

    21STCV29722

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff concedes that his claim for malicious prosecution parallels his claim for civil conspiracy. Accordingly, the Court applies its anti-SLAPP analysis for Plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution to Plaintiff's claim for civil conspiracy. As inopportune as Plaintiff's experiences were with Defendants, his claims nonetheless fall within the purview of section 425.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

  • Name

    FLORIAN GOETTE VS. FERGUS MORONEY (CCP 170.6 CHALLENGE AGAINST JUDGE KAHN; PENDING CCP170.1 CHALLENGE TO JUDGE QUINN)

  • Case No.

    CGC15546172

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2015

The information against Plaintiff was eventually dismissed, and he filed this action for malicious prosecution. On November 7, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the magistrates finding of probable cause at the preliminary hearing collaterally estops Plaintiff from asserting malicious prosecution.

  • Name

    OCTAVIO SUAREZ VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV31040

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The existence of conflicting evidence, even evidence that makes it unlikely for Dolores to have succeeded, does not mean that the underlying lawsuit lacked probable cause to the point of being malicious prosecution. If there is any reasonable basis for Dolores action, the malicious prosecution claim fails.

  • Name

    ROCHELLE LIND, ET AL. VS DOLORES TARIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV10884

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court intends to SUSTAIN with leave to amend as to the seventh cause of action for malicious prosecution. For a favorable termination to support a claim for malicious prosecution it must reflect upon the plaintiff's innocence in the underlying criminal action. Plaintiff merely alleges that his criminal action was dismissed which is not sufficient.

  • Name

    SANTINO PERA VS AT&T CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00454146-CU-CR-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2014

The defendants did not challenge the 2nd COA for malicious prosecution, which remains. (JH)

  • Name

    KREMEN VS DORBANK

  • Case No.

    CGC01324482

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2002

The alleged facts are insufficient to show, as a matter of law, liability for malicious prosecution is established as the standards for bad faith for the purposes of attorney's fees are different than in a malicious prosecution case. The court will hear argument on the motions to compel inspection demand from defendants J. Victor Samuels, and Sameis Holdings, LLC (Sets one), and Dispatch & Tracking.

  • Name

    ORION COMMUNICATIONS INC VS DISPATCH & TRACKING SOLUTIONS LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00016273-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

To the contrary, California Courts have held that liability for malicious prosecution is not limited to one who initiates an action and that “[a] person who did not file a complaint may be liable for malicious prosecution if he or she ‘instigated’ the suit or ‘participated in it at a later time.’ ” (Nunez v. Pennisi (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 861, 873.)

  • Name

    HENRY G WYKOWSKI ESQ VS DANIEL SOSA ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC709545

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

The malicious prosecution cause of action implicates CCP 425.16. Plaintiff is therefore obliged to present evidence to establish the malicious prosecution cause of action. Plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence showing that the defendants acted with malice. In addition, the court notes that Judge Karnow's order granting summary judgment stated that the motion was granted because the facts were in equipoise.

  • Name

    WILLIAM S WEISBERG ET AL VS. HEIDI TIMKEN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14536857

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2014

Malicious Prosecution “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 been tended to indicate the malicious prosecution of plaintiff’s innocence.” (Daniels v. Robbins (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 204, 217.) This cause of action accrued when Petitioner’s conviction was overturned.

  • Name

    PETITION OF MARCO CONTRERAS

  • Case No.

    TS021012

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2018

  • Judge

    Brian S. Currey or Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Malicious Prosecution The elements of malicious prosecution have historically been carefully circumscribed so that litigants with potentially valid claims will not be deterred from bringing their claims to court or reporting potential crimes by the prospect of a subsequent malicious prosecution claim. (See Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 872; Paiva v. Nichols (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1018.)

  • Name

    LARSEN VS SACOR FINANCIAL INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2104157

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2022

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope