Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a), subsection (13), states: “An appeal. . . may be taken from any of the following: [¶] (13) From an order granting or denying a special motion to strike under Section 425.16.” In the present case, the plaintiff/appellant had specifically pled the claim was a SLAPP-back cause of […]
Doctrine Of Collateral Estoppel Applied To Malicious Prosecution Claim.
A man tried to cash some checks at a bank, but the bank refused. The situation evolved into bank employees calling the police and the man being arrested for making a criminal threat. Although the magistrate in the man’s preliminary hearing found the man lacked credibility, a jury acquitted the man on the criminal charges. […]
Appellate Courts Split On Which Statute Of Limitations Applies For Malicious Prosecution Against Attorneys.
When attorneys were sued for malicious prosecution 13 months after resolution of the underlying action, they brought a motion to strike, citing the one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 and Vafi v. McCloskey (2011) 193 Cal.App. 4th 874, [122 Cal.Rptr.3d 608], which held that the one-year statute applied in a […]
Employer’s Malicious Prosecution Cross-Complaint Against Employee Tossed.
An employee sued his employer for wrongful termination. The employer cross-complained for malicious prosecution, contending the employee had maliciously prosecuted a meritless claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The employee’s special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute [Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16] was denied. The court of appeal reversed, stating: “Having determined that the malicious […]
One-Year Statute Of Limitations Applies In Action Against Attorney For Malicious Prosecution.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 specifies a one-year statute of limitations in actions against attorneys “arising in performance of professional services, except for actions for actual fraud.” Section 335.1 specifies a general two-year statute of limitations applicable to actions for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff sued his opponent in an earlier suit and her attorney for malicious […]
Another Malicious Prosecution Followed By AntiSLAPP Motion.
There was an underlying action for fraud, and almost two years later, a malicious prosecution action was filed by a defendant who prevailed earlier. The later action was against the earlier plaintiffs as well as their lawyers. In the malicious prosecution action, one lawyer successfully demurred, citing the statute of limitations set forth in Code […]