CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Procedure Before Trial/Hearing
......Torts
.........Malicious Prosecution
7 Cards On This Topic:

Filing of meritless cross-complaint against attorney seeking fees not a protected activity warranting anti-SLAPP protection.

Because W's act of making a false police report against H was not in furtherance of her constitutional rights of petition or free speech, anti-SLAPP statute does not protect her against H's civil suit.

Under Bidna v. Rosen, H cannot state a malicious prosecution C/A against atty for W's request, in family court, for initial DVPA RO and W and atty's subsequent requests for its extensions, renewals, and amendments.

Based on H's failure to make a prima facie case of prevailing on malicious prosecution C/A in DVPA case, trial ct. correctly granted atty's anti-SLAPP motion to strike H's abuse of process cause of action against her.

Cross-complaint originating in dissolution action may form basis for W's malicious prosecution action.

Litigation privilege not applicable to W's filing false police report accusing H of child molest: CC §47(b) does not immunize party otherwise liable under PC §11172(a).

Malicious prosecution cause of action not appropriate in family law proceeding.