CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Procedure Before Trial/Hearing
......Torts
.........Malicious Prosecution
 12 Cards On This Topic:
  • Where client's threshold showing that former attys' x-complaint was based not on extortion but on protected activity, and former attys did not show a probability of overcoming client's litig. priv. defense, ct. properly granted special mtns. to strike.
  • Citizens group did not establish a probability of prevailing on their malicious prosecution claim where they could not show that law firm lacked probable cause or acted out of malice in naming them in quiet title action.
  • Anti-SLAPP motion to strike malicious prosecution suit properly denied where Ps met burden of showing D attorney's motions lacked probable cause and evinced indifference, even malice.
  • An OSC re contempt does not form a basis for a malicious prosecution action and hence is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss.
  • An attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause.
  • Filing of meritless cross-complaint against attorney seeking fees not a protected activity warranting anti-SLAPP protection.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.


    •