PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........Malicious Prosecution
25 Cards On This Topic:

SLAPPback.

Attorney may be held liable for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit after discovering lack of probable cause.

Ds, whose action dismissed under CCP 425.16 could invoke that statute as defense to P's subsequent action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process; however, P here demonstrated probability of prevailing.

Malicious prosecution action not exempt from CCP 425.16 scrutiny.

As rules for review of orders denying/granting anti-SLAPPback claims differ from anti-SLAPP claims, P failed to timely seek review w/in 20 days of notice of entry, Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction, and appeal dismissed.

When P filed malicious prosecution complaint, and special motion to strike was heard, he had a pending cross-complaint in underlying action against same Ds—thus there was no favorable termination and his complaint was premature.

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.

Applicable SOL for malicious prosecution is CCP 335.1, not CCP 340.6, irrespective of whether the party being sued for malicious prosecution is the former adversary or the adversary's attorneys.

Atty. Ds' CCP 425.16 motion to strike malicious prosecution suit failed where they did not provide a summary of significant facts, and their underlying petition was found to be filed in bad faith and for an improper purpose; sanctions awarded.

Attys. appearing on all pleadings filed for Ps in underlying case could not avoid liability for malicious prosecution by showing they had passive role as standby counsel to try the case in the event of trial.

Denial of special motion to strike established existence of probable cause where trial ct.'s denial ruling was predicated on finding action had potential merit.

Litigation privilege bars claim for abuse of process, and voluntary dismissal of a claim after a court held it was barred by res judicata was not a favorable termination for purposes of malicious prosecution.

P's malicious prosecution C/A against store after her trial for shoplifting properly stricken under CCP 425.16 as store's report to police of a suspected crime falls within the litigation privilege.

Atty's affidavit, filed in a foreign court to influence determination of issues pending in a CA court, qualified for protection under anti-SLAPP statute as a writing made in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body.

Ps' malicious prosecution claims properly subject to special motions to strike; denial of their SJ motion showed probable cause and they failed to carry burden of showing probability of prevailing on their claims.

Order granting anti-SLAPP motion aff'd where P failed to show probability of prevailing and could not make prima facie case of malice against defendant attys re malicious prosecution C/A.

Error to deny Ds’ anti-SLAPP motion where P failed to make prima facie showing that Ds lacked probable cause to bring patent dispute action.

As malicious prosecution C/A does not arise from unsuccessful CCP 527.8 petition, P could not have proven probability of prevailing and C/A should have been stricken under CCP 425.16.

P's motion to strike attorney's malicious prosecution action properly denied where P's breach of contract and legal malpractice claims lacked merit, and attorney's evidence sufficient to establish probability of his prevailing.

Special motion to strike properly denied where Ps had right to file malicious prosecution action.

D's CCP 425.16 motion to strike should have been granted as to cause of action for malicious prosecution, which may not be based on unsuccessful civil harassment petition.

Malicious prosecution claim based upon prior termination of a criminal prosecution in plaintiff's favor fell within ambit of CCP 425.16 motion to strike.

Malicious prosecution qualified for CCP 425.16 treatment where P showed probability of prevailing; perfection of appeal from denial of special motion to strike automatically stayed proceedings.

Trial court erred in determining Ps’ malicious prosecution complaint was not subject to CCP §425.16 special motion to strike procedures.