Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffarbitrationattorneysummary judgmentcorporationarbitrator

tortplaintiffdefendantdamageslitigationarbitrationattorneytrialpleasummary judgmentcorporationarbitrator

Related Cases

Stanley v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App.3d 460, 181 Cal.Rptr. 878

Facts

Jerome Stanley and Stanley & Wing, Inc. represented plaintiffs in a municipal court action against Snowfall Corporation, which concluded with a judicial arbitration award denying the plaintiffs' claim. The arbitrator did not award costs to either party. Following this, Snowfall filed a malicious prosecution suit against the plaintiffs and their attorney, Stanley, who then sought summary judgment, arguing that the arbitration award did not constitute a favorable termination.

Jerome Stanley and Stanley & Wing, Inc., (hereinafter referred to collectively as Stanley) were the attorneys for the plaintiffs in a municipal court action against Snowfall Corporation. That litigation ended with an award in a judicial arbitration proceeding by which the plaintiffs' claim was denied. The arbitrator did not award costs to either party.

Issue

Whether a judicial arbitration award that denies a plaintiff's claim constitutes a favorable termination for the purposes of a malicious prosecution action.

Rule

To establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove a prior judicial proceeding that was favorably terminated, and that the proceeding was brought maliciously and without probable cause.

In order to establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution of a civil suit a plaintiff must plead and prove (1) a prior judicial proceeding, (2) favorably terminated, and (3) that the proceeding was brought maliciously and without probable cause.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the arbitration award could be considered a favorable termination. It concluded that the arbitration's decision in favor of Snowfall indicated the plaintiffs' claim lacked merit, thus satisfying the requirement for favorable termination. The court also addressed Stanley's arguments regarding policy implications and the nature of judicial arbitration, ultimately finding that these did not preclude a malicious prosecution claim.

On initial consideration it seems obvious that the proceeding in question here falls within the classical framework of the malicious prosecution tort. A civil suit was brought for damages by plaintiff against defendant. At the request of the plaintiff it was submitted to statutory judicial arbitration… Thus, summary judgment cannot be granted because the arbitration award may or may not be a 'favorable termination' depending upon the resolution of the factual dispute at trial.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandate, affirming that the arbitration award constituted a favorable termination for the purposes of a malicious prosecution action.

The petition for a peremptory writ of mandate is denied.

Who won?

Snowfall Corporation prevailed in the case because the court found that the judicial arbitration award constituted a favorable termination for the malicious prosecution claim.

Defendant claims the original action was brought maliciously and without probable cause. All the prerequisites of a malicious prosecution seem to be present.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Yager v. Clauson, 169 N.H. 1, 139 A.3d 1127

Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462

Doe v. McKay, 183 Ill.2d 272, 700 N.E.2d 1018, 233 Ill.Dec. 310

Grantham v. Vanderzyl, 802 So.2d 1077

Joy v. Eastern Maine Medical Center, 529 A.2d 1364