Vafi

Vafi v. McCloskey

Good Law
122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 608·193 Cal. App. 4th 874·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 326
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2011No. B223237California3,154 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bigelow, J.

This matter presents an issue which it seems no reported decision has addressed: Which statute of limitations applies to an action for malicious prosecution against an attorney? We conclude that the limitations period applicable to actions against attorneys under section 340.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1 applies rather than the general statute of limitations applicable to actions for malicious prosecution under section 335.1. On this and other grounds, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS

In 2002, appellant Sassan Vafi and Kathleen Keller, who were dating at the time, decided to launch a business making and selling disposable swimsuits. A corporation named ONE SUIT, Inc. (ONE SUIT), was formed on July 17, 2002, with Vafi and Keller listed as the initial directors. Vafi filed a patent *878 application for the idea under his own name. Meanwhile, Keller registered the trademark ONE SUIT under her own name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2003 and the mark was issued to Keller alone on January 6, 2004. In late 2003, Keller and Vafi terminated their personal and business relationships. Vafi then sold the remaining inventory of swimsuits to www.FredaLA.com…

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.