Umansky

Umansky v. Urquhart

Good Law
148 Cal. Rptr. 547·1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1874·84 Cal. App. 3d 368
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 1978Civ. 16050California1,461 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiener, J.

This appeal raises the sole issue of whether the pleadings of a complaint against a physician requesting punitive damages for wrongful death, which failed to state a cause of action, can serve as the basis for the tort of abuse of process. For the reasons we set forth, we conclude the privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2 applies, and accordingly affirm the judgment in favor of defendants.

Charles Umansky (Umansky), a medical doctor, was sued in the superior court by the heirs of William L. Helton. The second cause of action of their complaint requested exemplary damages for the alleged malicious, intentional, wilful, wanton and reckless acts of the doctor which caused the wrongful death of the decedent. By stipulation an amended wrongful death complaint- was filed which deleted their cause of action for punitive damages. Umansky then filed the present case for abuse of process against the attorneys of record for the plaintiffs in the Helton case. He alleged the lawyers caused the complaint to be filed even though the cause of action for punitive damages did not lie as a matter of law under Code of Civil Procedure section 377. He further alleged the purpose…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.