Notice Of Motion And Special Motion To Strike; Courtesy Copy Of Complaint;
SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 LINE 10. DEFENDANTS PAUL WARTELLE, FRANCIS PINNOCK AND WARTELLE, WEAVER & SCHREIBER'S Special Motion To Strike IS GRANTED. PRONG ONE IS MET BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT IS CENTERED ON DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF. PRONG TWO IS MET. IN DORAN V MAGAN (1999) THE COURT HELD THAT THE DENIAL OF A C.C.P. 664.6 MOTION IS SIMPLY THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION AND DOES NOT DISPOSE OF THE ACTIONS. THE PARTIES RETAIN THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO LITIGATE THE ISSUES. THUS, A REASONABLE ATTORNEY WOULD BELIEVE THAT DEFENDANT'S ACTION COULD BE CONTINUE. THIS MEANS PLAINTIFF CANNOT PROVE HIS CLAIM OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. IT ALSO WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS TO CONTINUE THE ACTION. THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE, CIVIL CODE SECTION 47(B), IS A DEFENSE TO BOTH THE ABUSE OF PROCESS AND INVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIMS. =(302/PJM/AY)
Hearing Date
April 15, 2008
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Notice Of Motion And Special Motion To Strike; Courtesy Copy Of Complaint;
SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 LINE 10. DEFENDANTS PAUL WARTELLE, FRANCIS PINNOCK AND WARTELLE, WEAVER & SCHREIBER'S Special Motion To Strike IS GRANTED. PRONG ONE IS MET BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT IS CENTERED ON DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF. PRONG TWO IS MET. IN DORAN V MAGAN (1999) THE COURT HELD THAT THE DENIAL OF A C.C.P. 664.6 MOTION IS SIMPLY THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION AND DOES NOT DISPOSE OF THE ACTIONS. THE PARTIES RETAIN THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO LITIGATE THE ISSUES. THUS, A REASONABLE ATTORNEY WOULD BELIEVE THAT DEFENDANT'S ACTION COULD BE CONTINUE. THIS MEANS PLAINTIFF CANNOT PROVE HIS CLAIM OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. IT ALSO WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS TO CONTINUE THE ACTION. THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE, CIVIL CODE SECTION 47(B), IS A DEFENSE TO BOTH THE ABUSE OF PROCESS AND INVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIMS. =(302/PJM/AY)