Hindin

Hindin v. Rust

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 1247·13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 787·2004 Daily Journal DAR 6163·4 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4461
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 2004B160031California4,390 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

SUMMARY

The issue we consider in this appeal is whether, in the context of a malicious prosecution action, Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) permits summary adjudication on the ground that some but not all claims in a single underlying action were supported by probable cause. Because such a determination does not completely dispose of the entire malicious prosecution cause of action, we conclude that this statute does not permit summary adjudication under these circumstances. Therefore, in this case, the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication on this ground (as well as its subsequent piecemeal grant of summary judgment as to the other claim in the underlying action) was improper and we reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS

This case has already been before us several times. At the time of the last appeal, we summarized the case and proceedings to date as follows:

After a discussion of legal principles applicable to summary judgment and to the issue of probable cause in malicious prosecution cases, we said: “From this point forward, we discuss separately the issues as to the individual appellants and attorney appellants. The issues…

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.