{"id":915,"date":"2021-10-25T03:49:32","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:49:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=915"},"modified":"2022-05-03T19:59:26","modified_gmt":"2022-05-03T19:59:26","slug":"caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-ku7tknqg-2550bb7da50e92da6bd14a707de17ee9\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-ku7tknqg-2550bb7da50e92da6bd14a707de17ee9{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-ku7tknqg-2550bb7da50e92da6bd14a707de17ee9 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-ku7tknqg-2550bb7da50e92da6bd14a707de17ee9 .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-ku7tknqg-2550bb7da50e92da6bd14a707de17ee9 av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-ku7tm3dm-a95c87637422cb7480d9ffac5426d368\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-ku7tm3dm-a95c87637422cb7480d9ffac5426d368 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-ku7tm3dm-a95c87637422cb7480d9ffac5426d368 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">1501\u00a0Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] claims that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] wrongfully brought a lawsuit against [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it]. To establish this claim, [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] must prove all of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">1.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was actively involved in bringing [or continuing] the lawsuit;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[2.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That the lawsuit ended in [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s favor;]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[3.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That no reasonable person in [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s circumstances would have believed that there were reasonable grounds to bring the lawsuit against [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">4.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] acted primarily for a purpose other than succeeding on the merits of the claim;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">5.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was harmed; and<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">6.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s harm.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[The law requires that the trial judge, rather than the jury, decide if [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] has proven element 2 above, whether the earlier lawsuit ended in [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/its] favor. But before I can do so, you must decide whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] has proven the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">List all factual disputes that must be resolved by the jury.<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">The special [verdict\/interrogatory] form will ask for your finding on [this\/these] issue[s].]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[The law [also] requires that the trial judge, rather than the jury, decide if [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] has proven element 3 above, whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] had reasonable grounds for bringing the earlier lawsuit against [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it]. But before I can do so, you must decide whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] has proven the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">List all factual disputes that must be resolved by the jury.<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">The special [verdict\/interrogatory] form will ask for your finding on [this\/these] issue[s].] <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New September 2003; Revised April 2008, October 2008 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>Malicious prosecution requires that the proceeding have ended in the plaintiff\u2019s favor (element 2) and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that there were any grounds (probable cause) to initiate the proceeding (element 3). Probable cause is to be decided by the court as a matter of law. However, the jury may be required to find some preliminary facts before the court can make its legal determination, including facts regarding what the defendant knew or did not know at the time. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert &amp; Oliker<\/span>\u00a0(1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 881 [254 Cal.Rptr. 336, 765 P.2d 498].) If so, include element 3 and also the bracketed part of the instruction that refers to element 3.<\/p>\n<p>Favorable termination is handled in much the same way. If a proceeding is terminated other than on the merits, there may be disputed facts that the jury must find in order to determine whether there has been a favorable termination. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Fuentes v. Berry<\/span>\u00a0(1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1800, 1808 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 848].) If so, include element 2 and also the bracketed part of the instruction that refers to element 2. Once these facts are determined, the jury does not then make a second determination as to whether there has been a favorable termination. The matter is determined by the court based on the resolution of the disputed facts. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sierra Club Found. v. Graham<\/span>\u00a0(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1159 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 726]\u00a0[element of favorable termination is for court to decide].)<\/p>\n<p>Either or both of the elements of probable cause and favorable termination should be omitted if there are no disputed facts regarding that element for the jury to decide.<\/p>\n<p>Element 4 expresses the malice requirement. <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Public Employee Immunity.\u00a0Government Code section 821.6.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough the tort is usually called \u2018malicious prosecution,\u2019 the word \u2018prosecution\u2019 is not a particularly apt description of the underlying civil action. The Restatement uses the term \u2018wrongful use of civil proceedings\u2019 to refer to the tort.\u201d (5 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, \u00a7\u2009486, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cTo establish a cause of action for the malicious prosecution of a civil proceeding, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the prior action (1) was commenced by or at the direction of the defendant and was pursued to a legal termination in his, plaintiff\u2019s, favor; (2) was brought without probable cause; and (3) was initiated with malice.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bertero v. National General Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 50 [118 Cal.Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe remedy of a malicious prosecution action lies to recompense the defendant who has suffered out of pocket loss in the form of attorney fees and costs, as well as emotional distress and injury to reputation because of groundless allegations made in pleadings which are public records.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sagonowsky v. More<\/span>\u00a0(1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 122, 132 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 118], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe malicious commencement of a civil proceeding is actionable because it harms the individual against whom the claim is made, and also because it threatens the efficient administration of justice. The individual is harmed because he is compelled to defend against a fabricated claim which not only subjects him to the panoply of psychological pressures most civil defendants suffer, but also the additional stress of attempting to resist a suit commenced out of spite or ill will, often magnified by slanderous allegations in the pleadings.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Merlet v. Rizzo<\/span>\u00a0(1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 53, 59 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 83], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[The litigation privilege of\u00a0Civil Code section 47] has been interpreted to apply to virtually all torts except malicious prosecution.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Kimmel v. Goland<\/span>\u00a0(1990) 51 Cal.3d 202, 209 [271 Cal.Rptr. 191, 793 P.2d 524].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cLiability for malicious prosecution is not limited to one who initiates an action. A person who did not file a complaint may be liable for malicious prosecution if he or she \u2018instigated\u2019 the suit or \u2018participated in it at a later time.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nunez v. Pennisi<\/span>\u00a0(2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 861, 873 [193 Cal.Rptr.3d 912].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A] cause of action for malicious prosecution lies when predicated on a claim for affirmative relief asserted in a cross-pleading even though intimately related to a cause asserted in the complaint.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bertero, supra,<\/span>\u00a013 Cal.3d at p. 53.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cA claim for malicious prosecution need not be addressed to an entire lawsuit; it may \u2026 be based upon only some of the causes of action alleged in the underlying lawsuit.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt, Phelps &amp; Phillips, LLP<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 313, 333 [109 Cal.Rptr.3d 143].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A] lawyer is not immune from liability for malicious prosecution simply because the general area of law at issue is complex and there is no case law with the same facts that establishes that the underlying claim was untenable. Lawyers are charged with the responsibility of acquiring a reasonable understanding of the law governing the claim to be alleged. That achieving such an understanding may be more difficult in a specialized field is no defense to alleging an objectively untenable claim.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Franklin Mint Co.<\/span>,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 346.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cOur repeated references in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bertero<\/span>\u00a0to the types of harm suffered by an \u2018individual\u2019 who is forced to defend against a baseline suit do not indicate \u2026 that a malicious prosecution action can be brought only by an individual. On the contrary, there are valid policies which would be furthered by allowing nonindividuals to sue for malicious prosecution.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">City of Long Beach v. Bozek<\/span>\u00a0(1982) 31 Cal.3d 527, 531 [183 Cal.Rptr. 86, 645 P.2d 137], reiterated on remand from United States Supreme Court at 33 Cal.3d 727 [but holding that public entity cannot sue for malicious prosecution].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he courts have refused to permit malicious prosecution claims when they are based on a prior proceeding that is (1) less formal or unlike the process in the superior court (i.e., a small claims hearing, an investigation or application not resulting in a formal proceeding), (2) purely defensive in nature, or (3) a continuation of an existing proceeding.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Merlet, supra,<\/span>\u00a064 Cal.App.4th at p. 60.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[I]t is not enough that the present plaintiff (former defendant) prevailed in the action. The termination must \u2018\u2009\u201creflect on the merits,\u201d\u2009\u2019 and be such that it \u2018tended to indicate [the former defendant\u2019s] innocence of or lack of responsibility for the alleged misconduct.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Drummond v. Desmarais<\/span>\u00a0(2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 439, 450 [98 Cal.Rptr.3d 183], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018The entry of summary judgment for the defense on an underlying claim on grounds of insufficient evidence does not establish as a matter of law that the litigant necessarily can \u201cstate[] and substantiate[]\u201d \u2026 a subsequent malicious prosecution claim.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Cuevas-Martinez v. Sun Salt Sand, Inc<\/span>. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1109, 1120 [248 Cal.Rptr.3d 200].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[A] voluntary dismissal on technical grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, laches, the statute of limitations or prematurity, does not constitute a favorable termination because it does not reflect on the substantive merits of the underlying claim.\u2009\u2026\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Drummond, supra,<\/span>\u00a0176 Cal.App.4th at p. 456.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Code of Civil Procedure] Section 581c, subdivision (c)\u00a0provides that where a motion for judgment of nonsuit is granted, \u2018unless the court in its order for judgment otherwise specifies, the judgment of nonsuit operates as an adjudication upon the merits.\u2019\u2009\u2026 [\u00b6] We acknowledge that not every judgment of nonsuit should be grounds for a subsequent malicious prosecution action. Some will be purely technical or procedural and will not reflect the merits of the action. In such cases, trial courts should exercise their discretion to specify that the judgment of nonsuit shall not operate as an adjudication upon the merits.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nunez, supra<\/span>, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 874.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018\u2009\u201c[T]hat a malicious prosecution suit may be maintained where only one of several claims in the prior action lacked probable cause [citation] does not alter the rule there must first be a favorable termination of the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">entire<\/span>\u00a0action.\u201d\u2009\u2019 Thus, if the defendant in the underlying action prevails on\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">all<\/span>\u00a0of the plaintiff\u2019s claims, he or she may successfully sue for malicious prosecution if any one of those claims was subjectively malicious and objectively unreasonable. But if the underlying plaintiff succeeds on any of his or her claims, the favorable termination requirement is unsatisfied and the malicious prosecution action cannot be maintained.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lane v. Bell<\/span>\u00a0(2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 61, 64 [228 Cal.Rptr.3d 605], original italics, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018\u2009\u201cA voluntary dismissal may be an implicit concession that the dismissing party cannot maintain the action and may constitute a decision on the merits. [Citations.] \u2018It is not enough, however, merely to show that the proceeding was dismissed.\u2019 [Citation.] The reasons for the dismissal of the action must be examined to determine whether the termination reflected on the merits.\u201d [Citations.]\u2019 Whether that dismissal is a favorable termination for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim depends on whether the dismissal of the [earlier] Lawsuit is considered to be on the merits reflecting [plaintiff\u2019s \u2018innocence\u2019 of the misconduct alleged.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">JSJ Limited Partnership v. Mehrban<\/span>\u00a0(2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1512, 1524 [141 Cal.Rptr.3d 338], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIf a conflict arises as to the circumstances explaining a failure to prosecute an action further, the determination of the reasons underlying the dismissal is a question of fact.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Fuentes, supra,<\/span>\u00a038 Cal.App.4th at p. 1808, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[W]hen a dismissal results from negotiation, settlement, or consent, a favorable termination is normally not recognized. Under these latter circumstances, the dismissal reflects ambiguously on the merits of the action.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Weaver v. Superior Court<\/span>\u00a0(1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 166, 184\u2013185 [156 Cal.Rptr. 745], internal citations omitted, disapproved on other grounds in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sheldon Appel Co., supra,<\/span>\u00a047 Cal.3d at p. 882.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cNot every case in which a terminating sanctions motion is granted necessarily results in a \u2018favorable termination.\u2019 But where the record from the underlying action is devoid of any attempt during discovery to substantiate allegations in the complaint, and the court\u2019s dismissal is justified by the plaintiff\u2019s lack of evidence to submit the case to a jury at trial, a prima facie showing of facts sufficient to satisfy the \u2018favorable termination\u2019 element of a malicious prosecution claim is established\u2009\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Daniels v. Robbins<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 204, 219 [105 Cal.Rptr.3d 683].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he existence or absence of probable cause has traditionally been viewed as a question of law to be determined by the court, rather than a question of fact for the jury\u2009\u2026\u2009. [\u00b6] [It] requires a sensitive evaluation of legal principles and precedents, a task generally beyond the ken of lay jurors\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sheldon Appel Co., supra,<\/span>\u00a047 Cal.3d at p. 875.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhen there is a dispute as to the state of the defendant\u2019s knowledge and the existence of probable cause turns on resolution of that dispute,\u2009\u2026 the jury must resolve the threshold question of the defendant\u2019s factual knowledge or belief. Thus, when \u2026 there is evidence that the defendant may have known that the factual allegations on which his action depended were untrue, the jury must determine what facts the defendant knew before the trial court can determine the legal question whether such facts constituted probable cause to institute the challenged proceeding.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sheldon Appel Co., supra,<\/span>\u00a047 Cal.3d at p. 881, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhereas the malice element is directly concerned with the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">subjective<\/span>\u00a0mental state of the defendant in instituting the prior action, the probable cause element calls on the trial court to make an objective determination of the \u2018reasonableness\u2019 of the defendant\u2019s conduct, i.e., to determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sheldon Appel Co., supra,<\/span>\u00a047 Cal.3d at p. 878, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018The benchmark for legal tenability is whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim was tenable. [Citation.]\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC<\/span>\u00a0(2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 97, 114 [151 Cal.Rptr.3d 117], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018The facts to be analyzed for probable cause are those known to the defendant [in the malicious prosecution action] at the time the underlying action was filed.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Walsh v. Bronson<\/span>\u00a0(1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 259, 264 [245 Cal.Rptr. 888], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cA litigant will lack probable cause for his action either if he relies upon facts which he has no reasonable cause to believe to be true, or if he seeks recovery upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to him.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif<\/span>\u00a0(2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 292 [46 Cal.Rptr.3d 638, 139 P.3d 30].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[W]e reject their contention that unpled hidden theories of liability are sufficient to create probable cause.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Jay v. Mahaffey<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1542 [161 Cal.Rptr.3d 700].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cCalifornia courts have held that victory at\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">trial<\/span>, though reversed on appeal, conclusively establishes probable cause.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Roberts v. Sentry Life Insurance<\/span>\u00a0(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 375, 383 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 408], original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cCalifornia courts have long embraced the so-called interim adverse judgment rule, under which \u2018a trial court judgment or verdict in favor of the plaintiff or prosecutor in the underlying case, unless obtained by means of fraud or perjury, establishes probable cause to bring the underlying action, even though the judgment or verdict is overturned on appeal or by later ruling of the trial court.\u2019 This rule reflects a recognition that \u2018[c]laims that have succeeded at a hearing on the merits, even if that result is subsequently reversed by the trial or appellate court, are not so lacking in potential merit that a reasonable attorney or litigant would necessarily have recognized their frivolousness.\u2019 That is to say, if a claim succeeds at a hearing on the merits, then, unless that success has been procured by certain improper means, the claim cannot be \u2018totally and completely without merit.\u2019 Although the rule arose from cases that had been resolved after trial, the rule has also been applied to the \u2018denial of defense summary judgment motions, directed verdict motions, and similar efforts at pretrial termination of the underlying case.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Parrish v. Latham &amp; Watkins<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 3 Cal.5th 767, 776\u2013777 [221 Cal.Rptr.3d 432, 400 P.3d 1], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he fraud exception requires \u2018\u2009\u201cknowing use of false and perjured testimony.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Antounian v. Louis Vuitton Malletier<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 438, 452 [117 Cal.Rptr.3d 3].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cProbable cause may be present even where a suit lacks merit.\u2009\u2026 Suits which all reasonable lawyers agree totally lack merit\u2014that is, those which lack probable cause\u2014are the least meritorious of all meritless suits. Only this subgroup of meritless suits present[s] no probable cause.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Roberts, supra,<\/span>\u00a076 Cal.App.4th at p. 382.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A]n attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Zamos v. Stroud<\/span>\u00a0(2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 970 [12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 87 P.3d 802].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough attorneys may rely on their clients\u2019 allegations at the outset of a case, they may not continue to do so if the evidence developed through discovery indicates the allegations are unfounded or unreliable.\u201c (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Cuevas-Martinez, supra<\/span>, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 1121.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[W]here several claims are advanced in the underlying action, each must be based on probable cause.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lanz v. Goldstone<\/span>\u00a0(2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 441, 459 [197 Cal.Rptr.3d 227].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAs an element of the tort of malicious prosecution, malice at its core refers to an improper\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">motive<\/span>\u00a0for bringing the prior action. As an element of liability it reflects the core function of the tort, which is to secure compensation for harm inflicted by\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">misusing<\/span>\u00a0the judicial system, i.e., using it for something other than to enforce legitimate rights and secure remedies to which the claimant may tenably claim an entitlement. Thus the cases speak of malice as being present when a suit is actuated by hostility or ill will, or for some purpose other than to secure relief. It is also said that a plaintiff acts with malice when he asserts a claim with knowledge of its falsity, because one who seeks to establish such a claim \u2018can only be motivated by an improper purpose.\u2019 A lack of probable cause will therefore support an inference of malice.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Drummond, supra,<\/span>\u00a0176 Cal.App.4th at pp. 451\u2013452, original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cA lack of probable cause is a factor that may be considered in determining if the claim was prosecuted with malice [citation], but the lack of probable cause must be supplemented by other, additional evidence.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Silas v. Arden<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 75, 90 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 255].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBecause malice concerns the former plaintiff\u2019s actual mental state, it necessarily presents a question of fact.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Drummond, supra,<\/span>\u00a0176 Cal.App.4th at p. 452.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018Since parties rarely admit an improper motive, malice is usually proven by circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence.\u2019 \u2018[M]alice can be inferred when a party\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">continues<\/span>\u00a0to prosecute an action after becoming aware that the action lacks probable cause.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Cuevas-Martinez, supra<\/span>, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 1122, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cNegligence does not equate with malice. Nor does the negligent filing of a case necessarily constitute the malicious prosecution of that case.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Grindle v. Lorbeer<\/span>\u00a0(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1461, 1468 [242 Cal.Rptr. 562].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe motive of the defendant must have been something other than that of bringing a perceived guilty person to justice or the satisfaction in a civil action of some personal or financial purpose.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Downey Venture v. LMI Insurance Co.<\/span>\u00a0(1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 478, 494 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 142], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cMalice does not require that the defendants harbor actual ill will toward the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution case, and liability attaches to attitudes that range \u2018\u2009\u201cfrom open hostility to indifference. [Citations.]\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer &amp; Associates, APC<\/span>\u00a0(2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1113\u20131114 [142 Cal.Rptr.3d 646], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018Suits with the hallmark of an improper purpose\u2019 include, but are not necessarily limited to, \u2018those in which: \u201c\u2009\u2018\u2026 (1) the person initiating them does not believe that his claim may be held valid; (2) the proceedings are begun primarily because of hostility or ill will; (3) the proceedings are initiated solely for the purpose of depriving the person against whom they are initiated of a beneficial use of his property; (4) the proceedings are initiated for the purpose of forcing a settlement which has no relation to the merits of the claim.\u2019\u2009\u201d\u2009\u2019 [Citation.] [\u00b6] Evidence tending to show that the defendants did not subjectively believe that the action was tenable is relevant to whether an action was instituted or maintained with malice. [Citation.]\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Oviedo<\/span>,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>, 212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 113\u2013114.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Zamos<\/span>\u00a0[<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>] did not explicitly address the malice element of a malicious prosecution case, its holding and reasoning compel us to conclude that malice formed after the filing of a complaint is actionable.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Daniels, supra<\/span>, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 226.) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, \u00a7\u00a7\u2009554, 557, 562\u2013569, 571\u2013606<\/div>\n<div>Ahart, California Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments &amp; Debts, Ch. 2-C,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Liability For Unfair Collection Practices\u2014Tort Liability<\/span>, \u00b6\u20092:428 (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>4 Levy et al.,\u00a0California Torts, Ch. 43,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process,<\/span>\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u200943.01\u201343.10\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>31\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 357,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009357.10 et seq.\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>14\u00a0California Points and Authorities, Ch. 147,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009147.20\u00a0et seq. (Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-swi9n-0cf13edd8b79f5a5ca300c264f6b3c34 hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-228rv-1096f4b7dd4a9c92eda3fc921f3f1dc0\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-228rv-1096f4b7dd4a9c92eda3fc921f3f1dc0 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-228rv-1096f4b7dd4a9c92eda3fc921f3f1dc0 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-915","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-03T19:59:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:49:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-03T19:59:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-03T19:59:26+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/","name":"CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:49:32+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-03T19:59:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-1501-wrongful-use-of-civil-proceedings\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/915","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=915"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/915\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3405,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/915\/revisions\/3405"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}