Recently the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client in a malicious prosecution lawsuit.

Colman Perkins Law Group partner Sheryl Lee Reeves defended the lawsuit. CPLG and Law & Motion attorney, Truong X. Pham prepared the summary judgment motion.

The Malicious Prosecution Action

This case is one of multiple lawsuits involving family members related to a family trust.

In a prior case, Party A brought a probate action against Party B and Party C related to the family trust. The trial court dismissed that case because it found that Party A had not brought it in a timely manner.

In this case, Party B and Party C became the Plaintiffs. They alleged that the trial court’s decision to dismiss the prior underlying action was sufficient to establish a claim for malicious prosecution.

The Plaintiffs (Party B and Party C) sought special, general, consequential, and exemplary damages based on their claim. Notably, the Plaintiffs collectively requested $900,000 in special damages.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

To prevail on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff (in this case, Party B and Party C) must prove that:

• (1) the underlying action (the prior case) terminated in favor of the plaintiff (the defendant in the prior case),
• (2) was brought without probable cause, and
• (3) was initiated with malice.

The first element above was crucial. Party B and Party C had to show that the dismissal in the previous case was a reflection on their “innocence.”

The Defendant’s (Party A’s) summary judgment motion argued that the Plaintiffs (Party B and Party C) cannot prevail on their claim for malicious prosecution because the underlying action did not “terminate in the Plaintiffs’ favor”—Party B and Party C had not “prevailed” in the prior case.

Specifically, the Defendant (Party A) argued that because the trial court in the previous case dismissed the action based on the statute of limitations, it did not constitute a favorable termination for purposes of bringing a malicious prosecution action.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court found as a matter of law that the dismissal of the underlying action based on a statute of limitations does not constitute a favorable termination on the merits and granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Learn More

CPLG Verdicts
About partner Sheryl Lee Reeves
About attorney Truong X. Pham