Parrish v. Latham & Watkins LLP, 2014 WL 4220542 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

In a prior litigation, FLIR Systems, Inc., and Indigo Systems Corp. (collectively, “FLIR”) brought suit against their former employees, William Parrish and E. Timothy Fitzgibbons (the “Former Employees”), for, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets.  The Former Employees defeated the claims and then obtained a ruling that the misappropriation of

Siebel v. Mittlesteadt, 41 Cal. 4th 735 (2007)

Thomas M. Siebel, the CEO of Siebel Systems, Inc. (SSI), sued Carol L. Mittlesteadt and E. Rick Buell, II (the “Lawyers”), for malicious prosecution based on their representation of Debra Christoffers, a former SSI employee. Through the Lawyers, Christoffers sued Siebel (individually) as well as SSI for wrongful termination, fraud, unpaid compensation and discrimination. Most of

Robinzine v. Vicory, 143 Cal. App. 4th 1416 (2006)

Kimberly and Clifford Robinzine sued their former employer, RPM Company, and a number of coworkers for employment discrimination and related claims. The Robinzines also asserted a claim for malicious prosecution, which arose from a temporary restraining order that the employer had obtained against Clifford for an alleged threat of workplace violence. (When RPM was subsequently

StaffPro, Inc. v. Elite Show Services, Inc., 136 Cal. App. 4th 1392 (2006)

StaffPro initiated this malicious prosecution action against Elite Show Services, one of its competitors in the eventstaffing industry. Previously, Elite had sued StaffPro for unfair business practices that were allegedly designed to “artificially lower [StaffPro’s] cost of labor and to diminish or destroy competition for security guard and traffic control services

Soukup v. Stock, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303 (2004)

Peggy Soukup, a former employee of the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, sued Ronald C. Stock for abuse of process and malicious prosecution based upon Stock’s prosecution of an earlier lawsuit against Soukup on behalf of the Hafifs and their law firm. The underlying lawsuit, which involved Soukup’s alleged disclosure

Siebel v. Mittlesteadt, 118 Cal. App. 4th 406, 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 906 (2004)

Thomas M. Siebel, the CEO of Siebel Systems, Inc. (SSI), sued Carol L. Mittlesteadt and E. Rick Buell, II (the Lawyers), for malicious prosecution based on their representation of Debra Christoffers, a former SSI employee. Through the Lawyers, Christoffers sued Siebel (individually) as well as SSI for wrongful termination, fraud,

Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun, 32 Cal. 4th 336, 83 P.3d 497 (2004)

After Nasser Beydoun’s complaint against Casa Herrera for breach of a commercial contract and fraud was dismissed based on the parol evidence rule (barring evidence of prior oral promises that are inconsistent with a written agreement), Casa Herrera filed suit against Beydoun for malicious prosecution. Beydoun argued that termination of the

Mosby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 110 Cal. App. 4th 995 (2003)

Freddie Curtis Mosby and his wife Sheri Mosby sued Freddie’s employer, Best Buy, and Best Buy’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, for malicious prosecution and loss of consortium after Liberty Mutual reported Mosby to the local district attorney for workers’ compensation insurance fraud, which charges were dismissed after the

Swat-Fame, Inc. v. Goldstein, 101 Cal. App. 4th 613 (2002)

After the employer, Swat-Fame, prevailed in a fraud/breach of contract action that a former sales representative, Leslie Goldstein, had filed against it, Swat-Fame sued Goldstein and her attorneys for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted Goldstein’s and her lawyers’ motions for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the malicious prosecution