abuse of process claim in California

2022By definition, a malicious prosecution suit alleges that the defendant committed a tort by filing a lawsuit. [[Citation.]” (Jarrow Formulas, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 734-735, fn. omitted.) Likewise, since “the essence of the tort of abuse of process . . . [is] some misuse of process in a prior action[,] . . . it is hard to imagine an abuse of process claim that . 10 would not fall under the protection of the [anti-SLAPP] statute.” (Booker v. Rountree (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1370 .) A motion to strike under section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) is analyzed and resolved by “the court . . . eng

2022By definition, a malicious prosecution suit alleges that the defendant committed a tort by filing a lawsuit. [[Citation.]” (Jarrow Formulas, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 734-735, fn. omitted.) Likewise, since “the essence of the tort of abuse of process . . . [is] some misuse of process in a prior action[,] . . . it is hard to imagine an abuse of process claim that . 10 would not fall under the protection of the [anti-SLAPP] statute.” (Booker v. Rountree (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1370 .) A motion to strike under section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) is analyzed and resolved by “the court . . . eng

2021Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792 .) As to the second element, 21 “‘there is no abuse of process’” if the process “‘is used for its proper purpose even though the person uses it for wrongful and malicious motives.’” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 886 .) “[T]here is no tort where process is used properly albeit with a bad motive.” (Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 826 ; accord, Cantu, at p. 886 [“merely filing or maintaining a lawsuit is not a proper basis for an abuse of process claim”].) An improper purpose that will support an abuse

1998“To establish a cause of action for abuse of process, a plaintiff must plead two essential elements: that the defendant (1) entertained an ulterior motive in using the process and (2) committed a wilful act in a wrongful manner. [Citations.]” (Coleman, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 792 .) *65 Respondents contend that the complained of action was absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). 2 This statute provides in pertinent part: “A privileged publication or broadcast is one made: [¶] • • • [¶] (b) In any . . . judicial proceeding . . . .” The litigation privilege applies whe

1986In support of its contention, Greenberg cited the then-recent decision in Asia Investment Co. v. Borowski (1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 832 [184 *1162 Cal. Rptr. 317, 30 A.L.R.4th 561 ], which had rejected an abuse of process claim on similar facts.

1986In support of its contention, Greenberg cited the then-recent decision in Asia Investment Co. v. Borowski (1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 832 [184 *1162 Cal. Rptr. 317, 30 A.L.R.4th 561 ], which had rejected an abuse of process claim on similar facts.

2023Moreover, an abuse of process claim does not exist “where process is used properly albeit with a bad motive.” (Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 826 .) Based on our review of the record, we decide Lai did not substantiate his allegations with any evidence that Melen improperly presented declarations in the dissolution action.13 13 Melen filed, on December 5, 2017, a declaration in the marital dissolution action in San Mateo County stating she was attorney of record in that case and was submitting a declaration in support of Wang’s request for attorney fees base

2021Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792 .) As to the second element, 21 “‘there is no abuse of process’” if the process “‘is used for its proper purpose even though the person uses it for wrongful and malicious motives.’” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 886 .) “[T]here is no tort where process is used properly albeit with a bad motive.” (Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 826 ; accord, Cantu, at p. 886 [“merely filing or maintaining a lawsuit is not a proper basis for an abuse of process claim”].) An improper purpose that will support an abuse

2022Carol does not allege an abuse of the court’s process by “the misuse of the tools the law affords litigants once they are in a lawsuit.” (Bidna, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 22 Carol relies on Barquis, supra, 7 Cal.3d 94 , which offers no support for her position that the complaint here contained allegations sufficient to support an abuse of process claim.

2022Carol does not allege an abuse of the court’s process by “the misuse of the tools the law affords litigants once they are in a lawsuit.” (Bidna, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 22 Carol relies on Barquis, supra, 7 Cal.3d 94 , which offers no support for her position that the complaint here contained allegations sufficient to support an abuse of process claim.

2021The plaintiff must establish there was an underlying litigation that was “(i) initiated or maintained by, or at the direction of, the defendant, and pursued to a legal termination in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff; (ii) initiated or maintained without probable cause; and (iii) initiated or maintained with malice.” (Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (2017) 3 Cal.5th 767 , 775–776.) The trial court found Jiang did not demonstrate a probability of success on his malicious prosecution claim for several reasons.

2021The plaintiff must establish there was an underlying litigation that was “(i) initiated or maintained by, or at the direction of, the defendant, and pursued to a legal termination in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff; (ii) initiated or maintained without probable cause; and (iii) initiated or maintained with malice.” (Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (2017) 3 Cal.5th 767 , 775–776.) The trial court found Jiang did not demonstrate a probability of success on his malicious prosecution claim for several reasons.

2021For the malicious prosecution claim, the court found Jiang: (1) did not establish that the underlying action terminated in his favor; (2) did not plead a legally sufficient claim because he did not plead the element of malice; and (3) did “not address the element of damages ….” Finally, the court found Jiang did not plead a legally sufficient UCL claim because there were “no underlying facts alleged in the [complaint] to support any of the violations of the Penal Code ….”4 Based on these findings, the court granted the anti-SLAPP motion and struck the complaint. 4 The court expressly declined

2021For the malicious prosecution claim, the court found Jiang: (1) did not establish that the underlying action terminated in his favor; (2) did not plead a legally sufficient claim because he did not plead the element of malice; and (3) did “not address the element of damages ….” Finally, the court found Jiang did not plead a legally sufficient UCL claim because there were “no underlying facts alleged in the [complaint] to support any of the violations of the Penal Code ….”4 Based on these findings, the court granted the anti-SLAPP motion and struck the complaint. 4 The court expressly declined

2021Kaur claims (1) the ulterior motive for Manlin’s filing of the unpaid legal fees claim was to use it as a “club” against Singh, and (2) the willful use of process was including Kaur in the lawsuit even though Manlin’s dispute was with Singh. 10 But an abuse of process claim requires more. “[W]hile a defendant’s act of improperly instituting or maintaining an action may, in an appropriate case, give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution, the mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit—even for an improper purpose—is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.” (Oren Royal Oaks

2014Therefore, the first 27 anti-SLAPP prong is satisfied.” (S.A. v. Maiden, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 42 , mod. 229 Cal.App.4th 497a.) (c) Second step – probability of prevailing on claim (i) required showing “‘The common law tort of abuse of process arises when one uses the court’s process for a purpose other than that for which the process was designed. [Citations.] It has been “interpreted broadly to encompass the entire range of ‘procedures’ incident to litigation.” [Citation.] [¶] “[T]he essence of the tort [is] . . . misuse of the power of the court; it is an act done in the name of the

2015“Merely obtaining or seeking process is not enough; there must be subsequent abuse, by a misuse of the judicial process for a purpose other than that which it was intended to serve. [Citations.] The gist of the tort is the improper use of the process after it is issued.” (Adams v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 521 , 530- 531.) The court sustained without leave to amend the causes of action for wrongful foreclosure based on defects in the notice of sale, right of redemption, and injunctive relief; sustained with leave to amend the abuse of process and quiet title claims; and overruled the

2005Even disregarding the absolutely privileged nature of this motion, 7 an abuse of process claim cannot be premised on merely seeking or obtaining a court ruling on a motion, but instead requires some proof there was a “subsequent abuse, by a misuse of the judicial process for a purpose other than that which it was intended to serve. [Citations.] The gist of the tort is the improper use of the process after it is issued. [Citation.]” (Adams v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 521, 530-531 .) Because defendants’ motion was unsuccessful, there was no legal process that was subsequently imprope

2006(See Vogel v. Felice (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1006 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 350 ] [finding that the plaintiff opposing anti-SLAPP motion neither pleaded nor established by admissible evidence valid defamation claim].) The abuse of process claim clearly appears to have been barred.

2006(See Vogel v. Felice (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1006 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 350 ] [finding that the plaintiff opposing anti-SLAPP motion neither pleaded nor established by admissible evidence valid defamation claim].) The abuse of process claim clearly appears to have been barred.

2025To establish a probability of prevailing on the merits, a plaintiff need only have “ ‘stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim.’ ” (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 63 .) “ ‘Put another way, the plaintiff “must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” ’ ” (Rusheen v. Cohen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1056 .) “ ‘[T]he plaintiff [must] establish a probability he or she will prevail on the clai

2025To establish a probability of prevailing on the merits, a plaintiff need only have “ ‘stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim.’ ” (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 63 .) “ ‘Put another way, the plaintiff “must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” ’ ” (Rusheen v. Cohen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1056 .) “ ‘[T]he plaintiff [must] establish a probability he or she will prevail on the clai

2024(Yee v. Superior Court (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 26, 37 , citing Rest.2d Torts, § 682; CACI No. 1520.) “ ‘[T]he essence of the tort [of abuse of process is] . . . misuse of the power of the court; it is an act done in the name of the court and under its authority for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice.’ ” (Rusheen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1057 .) Evidence of misuse of this power is “essential as ‘ “there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.’ (Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 49 Cal.2d 21

2023Assn. (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 749, 753 .) Thus, “[a]pplication of the tort to administrative proceedings would not serve the purpose of the tort, which is to preserve the integrity of the court.” (Stolz v. Wong Communications Limited Partnership (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1811, 1823 .) The complaint alleges defendants presented a “forged document” (presumably the spreadsheet attached to the arbitration brief) and “intentionally used the arbitration for the 21 purpose of perpetrating an injustice.” Since there is no allegation in the abuse of process claim that defendants misused the power of the cour

2023(See Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 , 296–297 [“[a] judgment on the pleadings and a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer are reviewed under the same de novo standard”]; Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852 [“[i]n the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action”].) 28 original [complaint].” (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 408-409 ,

2023Assn. (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 749, 753 .) Thus, “[a]pplication of the tort to administrative proceedings would not serve the purpose of the tort, which is to preserve the integrity of the court.” (Stolz v. Wong Communications Limited Partnership (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1811, 1823 .) The complaint alleges defendants presented a “forged document” (presumably the spreadsheet attached to the arbitration brief) and “intentionally used the arbitration for the 21 purpose of perpetrating an injustice.” Since there is no allegation in the abuse of process claim that defendants misused the power of the cour

2023(See Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 , 296–297 [“[a] judgment on the pleadings and a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer are reviewed under the same de novo standard”]; Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852 [“[i]n the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action”].) 28 original [complaint].” (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 408-409 ,