As a general rule, California malicious prosecution actions are dicey propositions insofar as they always subject the plaintiff to a potential Anti-SLAPP motion from the defendant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.   At a minimum, such a motion requires the plaintiff to immediately produce admissible evidence establishing the malicious prosecution claim.  The failure to produce such evidence causes the dismissal of the case and may result in the plaintiff having to pay the defendant’s reasonable attorney fees for bringing the motion.   Malicious prosecution cases arising out of family law court matters are even more problematic.

As a general rule, for public policy reasons plaintiffs are not entitled to bring malicious prosecution actions stemming from matters originating in the family law courts. Bidna v. Rosen (1993) 19 Cal.App.4^th 27.  A very narrow exception to the Bidna rule was carved out by Nicholson v. Fazeli (2003) 113 Cal.App.4^th 1091, wherein a wife was permitted to maintain a malicious prosecution complaint against a Trust (which had previously filed a cross-complaint in the wife marital dissolution action) because the Trust’s cross-complaint did not implicate any family law issues (i.e., it did not specifically involve allegations related to marital status, child custody, spousal support, or the division of community property).  Because the Trust’s cross-complaint was a fairly rare animal (the vast majority of all family law court pleadings will involve some family law issue), parties contemplating filing a malicious prosecution action arising out of a family law court are strongly advised to consult with an attorney to obtain advice before filing a complaint that might be immediately dismissed and, even worse, might subject the party to paying the other side’s attorney fees. source

Proving the “Prior Action” Requirement of a Malicious Prosecution Case

How To Sue For Malicious Prosecution For A Civil (Not Criminal) Lawsuit.

You get sued.  They claim to be the “victim,” but you are the real victim.  You are being sued based on a falsehood … for their improper motives.  Can you strike back for justice?

Victims often ask lawyers whether they can sue for malicious prosecution.  Situations arise when a victim has been sued wrongfully.  They have stress.  They have legal expenses.  Other costs come in.  The wrongful lawsuit damages their reputation.  It may even be damage their credit rating.

Some victims merely want emotional support.  They want someone to tell them they are right, the person that sued them is wrong, and provide sympathy.  That is certainly the expected role of family, and friends.  It is a whole other matter entirely to counter – sue the person and attempt to win money from them.

The Benefits of Malicious Prosecution Suits

Malicious prosecution lawsuits have three main benefits:

1. Compensation for out of pocket and other expenses.
2. Deter or prevent the wrongdoer from wrongfully suing others in the future.
3. Deter other similar wrongdoers from creating victims.

The same legal analysis must be completed regardless of whether you are a victim or an attorney.  This article explains the process in a civil setting.  Look to our companion article on criminal cases.

The Technical Legal Test to Win at Malicious Prosecution

The traditional elements of a lawsuit for malicious prosecution are as follows:

1. The commencement or prosecution of a proceeding against the victim;
2. “Legal Causation” by the present defendant;
3. The lawsuit’s termination in favor of the present plaintiff;
4. The absence of probable cause for the proceeding;
5. The presence of malice;
6. Damage to the victim.

State ex rel. O’Basuyi v. Vincent, 434 S.W.3d 517, 519 (Mo. banc 2014);

Bonzo v. Kroger Grocery and Baking Co., 125 S.W.2d 75 (Mo. 1939);

Higgins v. Knickmeyer-Fleer Realty and Investment Co., 74 S.W.2d 805,812 (Mo. 1934).

This is the traditional law for malicious prosecution.  Is it confusing you?  There is an easier analysis.

The Easier to Understand Test for Malicious Prosecution

The Missouri Approved Instructions for a jury trial present a straightforward analysis for evaluating potential malicious prosecution cases.  It is meant for ordinary people to understand and will be easier for you.

The test for malicious prosecution is as follows:

• First, did the wrongdoer instigate or continue a judicial proceeding (a lawsuit) against the victim (you) that the victim won?
• Second, in doing that, did the wrongdoer acted maliciously and without reasonable grounds?
• Third, was the victim damaged?

Paraphrase of M.A.I. 23.07 (2000 Rev.).

What Does “Maliciously” mean?

You may have noticed some technical terms.  They are important.  The first term is “maliciously.”  In a civil setting, maliciously means intentionally doing a wrongful act without just cause or excuse.  It does not necessarily mean hatred, spite, or ill will.  M.A.I. 16.01 (1) (1996 new); see also Sanders v. Daniel Intern Corp., 682 S.W.2d 803 (Mo. banc 1984); and Proctor v. Stevens Employment Services, Inc., 712 S.W.2d 684 (Mo. banc 1986).

What Is Reasonable Grounds?

Reasonable grounds is also needed for your analysis of whether you have a malicious prosecution case.  Luckily, reasonable grounds is defined.  “Reasonable grounds” means the existence of facts which would cause an ordinarily careful person to believe plaintiff (the victim) was guilty of the offense charged.  See Palcher v. JC Nichols Co., 783 S.W.2d 166 (Mo. App. 1990).

Our Law Dislikes Malicious Prosecution Cases

Malicious prosecution cases are not favored in the law.  Stafford v. Muster, 582 S.W.2d 670, 675 (Mo. banc 1979).  Because of this, you as the victim must be prepared to provide “strict and clear proof” of each of the elements of malicious prosecution.  Id.

Probable Cause Weighs In Too!

The second element of malicious prosecution requiring reasonable grounds is closely related to probable cause.  You should plan on addressing the probable cause elements as part of your malicious prosecution case.

The Missouri Supreme Court has set out a definition for probable cause in civil cases.  It is as follows:

1. The person’s beliefs in the facts alleged,
2. Based upon sufficient circumstances to reasonably induce such belief by a person of ordinary prudence in the same situation, plus
3. A reasonable belief that under the facts the claim may be valid under the applicable law.

Holly v. Caulfield, 49 S.W.3d 747, 750-51 (Mo. App. 2001).

The Easy to Understand Test for Probable Cause

Basically, you need to ask yourself the following questions:

• Did the person who sued you believe the facts they were alleging?
• Would any reasonable person believe those facts?
• Did the law allow a lawsuit against you; under those facts, assuming they were true?

Can I Get Punitive Damages To Punish?

Punitive damages are called “exemplary damages” and are not favored by the courts, much like malicious prosecution cases.  To get punishment damages in a malicious prosecution case, “the proceedings must have been initiated or continued primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper Judication of the claim on which they are based.”  Proctor v. Stevens Employment Services, Inc., 712 S.W.2d 684 (6, 7) (Mo. banc 1986).  Remember that punitive damages require a separate determination by the court by “clear and convincing evidence,” which is a higher standard.  Remember, who you are suing must have acted with a conscious disregard for your rights.  I encourage you look to my article on punitive damages to see the specific elements of that cause of action.

Conclusion

Malicious prosecution cases are complex and have many legal requirements, as you can see.  This is why malicious prosecution is so often an accusation and so seldom an actual lawsuit.

Usually, these lawsuits come about when it is either debt collector who does not care what the facts are and sues as many people as they can to collect money.  Secondly, we see malicious prosecution lawsuits when it is an actual person who is just suing to “get at” somebody.  I wish you luck in your analysis and hope any victims can receive just compensation based upon our analysis. source

Learn more about these sujects

• Malicious Prosecution
• Prosecutional Misconduct
• Vindictive Prosecution
• Retaliatory Prosecution
• Abuse of Process

Selected Issues in Malicious Prosecution Cases

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct

Vindictive Prosecution – Georgetown University

VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

What is Abuse of Process?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution?

Malicious Prosecution Actions Arising Out Of Family Law Proceedings: Proceed Carefully

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution

SCOTUS Makes It Easier To Sue Police And Prosecutors For Malicious Prosecution

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

National District Attorneys Association – National Prosecution Standards – NDDA

What Happens If Charges Are Dropped Before Trial?

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Thomp$on v. Clark – Maliciou$ Pro$ecution 

Reichle v. Howards (2012) – Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials –1st Amendment

People v. Superior Court (Greer) 5th & 8th Amendment – Bias / Malicious Persecutor

Hartman v. Moore (2006) –Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Epic SCOTUS Decisions

learn more about Anti-SLAPP:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California 1st Amendment Freedom of Press & Speech

California Supreme Court Confirms that the “anti-SLAPP” Statute Applies to Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation 

California Supreme Court Confirms that the “anti-SLAPP” Statute Applies to Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation

Prior to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson vs. Cable News Network, Inc., California Courts of Appeal were split on whether California’s anti-SLAPP statute applied to an employee’s claims of discrimination and retaliation.  The Supreme Court in Wilson resolved this split in favor of the statute’s application, bringing a welcome bit of good (albeit narrowly tailored) news to California employers.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is referred to as the anti-SLAPP statute.  The term “SLAPP” refers to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which are meritless lawsuits brought against critics in order to silence their criticism.  Section 425.16 was first passed by the California legislature in 1992 due to its concern that real estate developers were attempting to bully project opponents into submission by filing frivolous litigation.  This section provides a procedure for a defendant to challenge a pleading via a special motion to strike.  In order to succeed on the challenge, the defendant must demonstrate that the claim or claims at issue arise out of protected speech or petitioning activity.  If the defendant can make this showing, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the claim or claims have probable validity.  If the plaintiff makes this showing, then the defendant’s motion is denied. If not, then the claim or claims at issue are dismissed and the defendant is entitled to his, her, or its attorneys’ fees and costs.

With this in mind, it is clear that the anti-SLAPP laws can be a powerful weapon if wielded correctly.  And that is where the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson comes into play,  both with good news and bad news.

First the good news.  Prior to Wilson, some California Courts of Appeal had held that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to claims of discrimination and/or retaliation by an employer.  The reasoning of these courts was that a claim for discrimination and retaliation did not arise out of any protected speech or petitioning activity by the employer, even if the alleged adverse action implicated protected speech or petitioning activity.  Rather, such actions arose out of the employer’s improper motivation in proceeding with the allegedly improper contact.  For this reason, employer defendants could not satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute.

The Supreme Court in Wilson rejected that reasoning and held that while claims for discrimination and retaliation do arise out of an employer’s improper motivation, they also arise out of the adverse action itself, which action may implicate protected speech.  For this reason, and if the adverse action at issue does implicate conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, the statute applies regardless of the allegations of improper motive.

This brings us to the bad news.  Specifically, the category of cases and situations in which an employer’s alleged discrimination and retaliation implicates protected speech or petitioning activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute is limited.  This is particularly true of private employers whose operations do not generally concern issues of public concern, which play a significant role in the relevant analysis.  In Wilson, such conduct was implicated because the defendant was CNN – an international news organization reporting on international events.  The same will generally not be true for a restaurant or general contractor who is alleged to have discriminated or retaliated against one of its employees.

Despite its narrow application, Wilson is good news for California employers and a case that needs to be kept in mind when defending against employment claims to determine if there is a way to tie such claims to protected speech.  Beyond that, Wilson is also helpful in defending against arguments that laws of general application do not apply in the employment context. source

learn more about Anti-SLAPP:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California 1st Amendment Freedom of Press & Speech

California Supreme Court Confirms that the “anti-SLAPP” Statute Applies to Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation 

Malicious Prosecution Actions Arising Out Of Family Law Proceedings: Proceed Carefully

Anti Slapp Law Resources:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

Rule 5.24. Joinder of persons claiming interest

CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT  Family and Juvenile Rules  Joinder of Parties

2022 California Rules of Court

Rule 5.24. Joinder of persons claiming interest

A person who claims or controls an interest in any matter subject to disposition in the proceeding may be joined as a party to the family law case only as provided in this chapter.

• (a) Applicable rules
  • (1)  All provisions of law relating to joinder of parties in civil actions generally apply to the joinder of a person as a party to a family law case, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
  • (2)  The law applicable to civil actions generally governs all pleadings, motions, and other matters pertaining to that portion of the proceeding as to which a claimant has been joined as a party to the proceeding in the same manner as if a separate action or proceeding not subject to these rules had been filed, except as otherwise provided in this chapter or by the court in which the proceeding is pending.
• (b) “Claimant” defined
  For purposes of this rule, a “claimant” is an individual or an entity joined or sought or seeking to be joined as a party to the family law proceeding.
• (c) Persons who may seek joinder
  • (1)  The petitioner or the respondent may apply to the court for an order joining a person as a party to the case who has or claims custody or physical control of any of the minor children subject to the action, or visitation rights with respect to such children, or who has in his or her possession or control or claims to own any property subject to the jurisdiction of the court in the proceeding.
  • (2)  A person who has or claims custody or physical control of any of the minor children subject to the action, or visitation rights with respect to such children, may apply to the court for an order joining himself or herself as a party to the proceeding.
  • (3)  A person served with an order temporarily restraining the use of property that is in his or her possession or control or that he or she claims to own, or affecting the custody of minor children subject to the action, or visitation rights with respect to such children, may apply to the court for an order joining himself or herself as a party to the proceeding.
• (d) Form of joinder application
  • (1)  All applications for joinder other than for an employee pension benefit plan must be made by serving and filing form a Notice of Motion and Declaration for Joinder (form FL-371). The hearing date must be less than 30 days from the date of filing the notice. The completed form must state with particularity the claimant’s interest in the proceeding and the relief sought by the applicant, and it must be accompanied by an appropriate pleading setting forth the claim as if it were asserted in a separate action or proceeding.
  • (2)  A blank copy of Responsive Declaration to Motion for Joinder and Consent Order for Joinder (form FL-373) must be served with the Notice of Motion and accompanying pleading.
• (e) Court order on joinder
• (1)  Mandatory joinder
  • (A)  The court must order that a person be joined as a party to the proceeding if the court discovers that person has physical custody or claims custody or visitation rights with respect to any minor child of the marriage, domestic partnership, or to any minor child of the relationship.
  • (B)  Before ordering the joinder of a grandparent of a minor child in the proceeding under Family Code section 3104, the court must take the actions described in section 3104(a).
• (2)  Permissive joinder
  The court may order that a person be joined as a party to the proceeding if the court finds that it would be appropriate to determine the particular issue in the proceeding and that the person to be joined as a party is either indispensable for the court to make an order about that issue or is necessary to the enforcement of any judgment rendered on that issue.
  In deciding whether it is appropriate to determine the particular issue in the proceeding, the court must consider its effect upon the proceeding, including:
  • (A)  Whether resolving that issue will unduly delay the disposition of the proceeding;
  • (B)  Whether other parties would need to be joined to make an effective judgment between the parties;
  • (C)  Whether resolving that issue will confuse other issues in the proceeding; and
  • (D)  Whether the joinder of a party to determine the particular issue will complicate, delay, or otherwise interfere with the effective disposition of the proceeding.
• (3)  Procedure upon joinder
  If the court orders that a person be joined as a party to the proceeding under this rule, the court must direct that a summons be issued on Summons (Joinder) (form FL-375) and that the claimant be served with a copy of Notice of Motion and Declaration for Joinder (form FL-371), the pleading attached thereto, the order of joinder, and the summons. The claimant has 30 days after service to file an appropriate response.

(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2017.)
Rule 5.24 amended effective January 1, 2017; adopted effective January 1, 2013.
Title 5, Family and Juvenile Rules-Division 1, Family Rules-Chapter 2, Parties and Joinder of Parties-Article 3, Employee Pension Benefit Plan; adopted January 1, 2013.

source

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules: Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

]]>