Bidari v. Kelk (2023)
Plaintiffs brought a malicious prosecution action against defendant after defendant’s false report to the police led to the arrest of one of the plaintiffs and an investigation that did not result in charges. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held the police investigation and plaintiff’s warrantless arrest were not judicial “actions” that could support a malicious prosecution claim because they did not involve adjudicatory proceedings in court. The court also concluded that the search warrant proceedings and plaintiff’s bail hearing, even if they qualified as judicial “actions,” were not terminated in plaintiffs’ favor as required for a malicious prosecution claim. The bail hearing does not assess culpability and therefore could not be terminated in plaintiff’s favor, and the search warrant proceedings produced warrants unfavorable to plaintiffs.
