• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Contact
  • Reviews

California Defamation Law Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Blogs
  • Archive Page
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Services
  • Contact Us
  • (626) 793-8607
You are here: Home / Anti-SLAPP / Malicious Prosecution

Malicious Prosecution

January 20, 2013 by Adrianos Facchetti 1 Comment

Malicious prosecution is extremely difficult to prove and is disfavored by the law. It requires the plaintiff to plead and prove four distinct elements in order to prevail. These elements are: (1) initiation of a prior proceeding; (2) favorable termination; (3) lack of probable cause; and (4) malice.

The first element is pretty self-explanatory: it requires the initiation of some formal proceeding, e.g. filing of a complaint. The second element is a bit more nuanced, but an example of a favorable termination would be a defense jury verdict or dismissal with prejudice of the underlying claims.

The existence of probable cause is determined by an objective test: “a suspicion founded upon circumstances warranting a reasonable man’s belief that grounds exist for initiating proceedings.”

If an attorney is being sued for malicious prosecution, the test for probable cause is whether, as an objective matter, “any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.” That is, the “ . . . standard [] is satisfied if the issues presented in the underlying action were arguably correct, even if it was extremely unlikely the client would win.”

And in order to show malice, plaintiff must plead and prove either ill will or some ulterior purpose distinct from that of enforcement of the alleged cause of action.

Those are the elements of a malicious prosecution. But beware: courts do not like these kinds of claims. And they are automatically subject to anti-SLAPP treatment. 

Buffer Share

Filed Under: Anti-SLAPP, Pasadena personal injury lawyer Tagged With: Pasadena personal injury lawyer

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Matthew says

    December 6, 2018 at 3:27 am

    I need a top notch malicious prosecution attorney. A bogus fraud claim against me was just terminated with prejudice and an ulterior motive to “punish me” was the basis of filing the false claim. Deposition and court testimony has clearly shown numerous lies related to the fraud case and my earnings loss and reputation loss exceed 1 million dollars, not including punitive damages. I please provide me the names of a few great attorneys.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Some Featured

How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion

Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Recent Posts

Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?

Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?

Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Follow Us On

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Search

Footer

California Defamation Law Blog

Law Offices of Adrianos Facchetti 4444 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 308, Burbank, CA 91505
California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney of Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm, offering services related to libel, internet defamation, slander, defamation of character, disparagement, anti-SLAPP, personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trucking accidents, serving Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura County, San Bernardino, and throughout California.

Recent Posts

  • How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion July 18, 2022
  • Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 28, 2022
  • May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 24, 2022
  • Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law? June 20, 2022

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in