Hart

*221 Where a plaintiff brings a lawsuit against a defendant, and the trial court denies a motion by the defendant for summary judgment or for nonsuit made after the plaintiff's case-in-chief, or the trier of fact returns a verdict for the plaintiff, that ruling or verdict-if decided on the merits and not procured by fraud-establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff had probable cause to bring its lawsuit and precludes a subsequent claim against the plaintiff for maliciously prosecuting that lawsuit, even if the trier of fact later rules for the defendant or the verdict is later overturned. ( Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811 , 823-824, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 , 50 P.3d 733 ( Wilson ).) Does this rule apply-and is a subsequent malicious prosecution claim barred-when the trial court in the prior lawsuit denied the defendant's motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 1 but went on to rule in the defendant's favor? We conclude that it does. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment dismissing this malicious prosecution action.

*222 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts

In 2010, defendant Gingko Rose Ltd. (Gingko Rose)…