Blog Home

Tag: Malicious Prosecution

April 19, 2004

Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 04 C.D.O.S. 3369

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 04 C.D.O.S. 3369

Download Publication The California Supreme Court holds that an attorney may be liable for malicious prosecution if he or she commences an action with probable cause, but continues to pursue the action after discovering facts that negate probable cause. Zamos represented Brookes in litigation that was partially settled.  Two years later Brooks hired Stroud to […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

December 30, 2003

Citi-Wide Preferred Couriers, Inc. v. Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 906

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Citi-Wide Preferred Couriers, Inc. v. Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 906

Download Publication The Second District reverses an order dismissing a malicious prosecution action arising from an insurer’s action for additional premiums.  A malicious prosecution action may be maintained where most but not all of the amount sought in the prior action was claimed without probable cause.  The insurer’s abandonment of the case and acknowledgment that […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

August 18, 2003

Jarrow v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Jarrow v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728

Download Publication The California Supreme Court holds that malicious prosecution actions brought against litigants and their attorneys are subject to scrutiny under California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statute Jarrow Formulas, Inc. hired Sandra LaMarche to perform graphic design work.  When their professional relationship soured Jarrow sued LaMarche for breach of contract.  LaMarche’s attorney, Mark Brutzkus, […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

October 29, 2002

White v. Lieberman (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 210

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on White v. Lieberman (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 210

Download Publication The Second District holds that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution actions arising from cases reversed on appeal begins to run on the date remittitur is entered.  It also holds that attorneys may rely upon C.C.P. § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, to attack malicious prosecution actions. Pursuant to an alleged right of […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

October 3, 2002

Morrison v. Rudolph (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 506

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Morrison v. Rudolph (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 506

Download Publishment The Fourth District holds that unless an attorney is aware of specific factual errors, he or she will not be liable for malicious prosecution for initiating an action based on a client’s version of events. Cynthia Ping (Ping) purchased a condominium from the Morrisons.  She claimed that after she took possession of the […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

August 29, 2002

Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763

Download Publication On remand from the California Supreme Court, the First District holds that the litigation privilege does not automatically bar a complaint based on the Constitutionally protected activity of the right to petition.  It also holds that the litigation privilege will not preclude liability for breach of contract. Navellier was an investment advisor for […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

August 5, 2002

Swat-Fame v. Goldstein (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 613

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Swat-Fame v. Goldstein (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 613

Download Publication The Second District holds that an attorney is entitled to rely on the representations of his or her client in determining whether probable cause exists to file a claim. Leslie Goldstein, a sales representative, hired the law firm of Posner & Rosen (“Posner”) to prosecute employment related claims she believed she had against […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

August 1, 2002

Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811

Download Publication The California Supreme Court holds that denial of a C.C.P.  § 425.16 special motion to strike establishes probable cause in a subsequent malicious prosecution action.  The Court accepts a decision permitting an attorney to utilize a C.C.P.  § 425.16 special motion to strike in a malicious prosecution action. Teachers and administrators at a […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

June 28, 2002

Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps and James B. Hicks (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1179

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps and James B. Hicks (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1179

Download Publication The Second District holds that settlement of an underlying suit may not operate to negate favorable termination and may not support an “anti-SLAPP” motion to strike. Mattel sued Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps and its former partner, James B. Hicks, for malicious prosecution of a copyright action filed by Hicks on behalf of […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

May 16, 2002

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan v. Tendler (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 318

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Stroock & Stroock & Lavan v. Tendler (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 318

Download Publication The Second District holds that the malicious prosecution “interim adverse judgment rule” does not apply to a ruling that does not address the merits of the underlying claim. Mar-Jeanne and Arthur Tendler (Tendler) were officers of Wiz Technology, Inc. (Wiz).  Wiz made an initial public offering that was underwritten by an investment-banking firm, […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates