Landis’ Labyrinth, Inc. v. Whitaker (Dec. 3, 2025 B339581) 2025 WL 3469550
Plaintiff, a toy store, sued Whitaker for malicious prosecution after the trial court found no Unruh Act violation by the toy store in the underlying action. The trial court granted summary judgment for Whitaker on grounds that there was no triable issue as to whether Whitaker had probable cause and did not act with malice in suing the toy store for violation of the Unruh Act. The toy store appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed in part. The court held that the factual findings from the underlying Unruh Act suit concerning Whitaker’s intentions and actions inside the toy store were preclusive as to those specific issues in the malicious prosecution but were not sufficient to warrant summary judgment. Thus, although the findings in the underlying action established that Whitaker “entered the Store with the sole purpose of scoping it out for ADA violations and did nothing else while inside the store,” the preclusive effect of these findings did not conclusively prove that Defendant lacked probable cause. “Issue preclusion applies only to issues that were actually litigated and decided in the prior case. . . . [The trial judge] did not consider whether Whitaker had probable cause to pursue his Unruh Act claim.” Accordingly. the Court reversed the summary judgment as to Whitaker.
