How To Prove A California Malicious Prosecution – Wrongful Use of Administrative Proceedings Claim

 

How To Prove A California Malicious Prosecution - Wrongful Use of Administrative Proceedings Claim

 

In California, a claim of Malicious Prosecution – Wrongful Use of Administrative Proceedings is defined as:

An action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without Probable Cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice.

It simply means:

A lawsuit brought for purposes other than bringing the defendant to justice.

There are 7 elements of the claim:

  • Element 1. The defendant was actively involved in bringing or continuing an administrative proceeding against the plaintiff. The defendant played a key role in starting or keeping a legal process going against the plaintiff, which is an important part of proving that the defendant wrongfully used the legal system to harm the plaintiff.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant filed a formal complaint with the administrative agency, initiating the proceedings against the plaintiff.
    * The defendant attended multiple hearings related to the administrative action, actively participating in the process.
    * The defendant submitted evidence and witness lists to the administrative body, demonstrating their involvement in the case.
    * The defendant communicated with agency officials regarding the status and progress of the administrative proceedings.
    * The defendant encouraged other parties to support the administrative action against the plaintiff, furthering their involvement.

  • Element 2. The administrative body did not conduct an independent investigation. The administrative body failed to carry out its own thorough investigation, which is a key factor in proving that someone wrongfully used legal processes against another person in a malicious prosecution claim.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The administrative body relied solely on the initial complaint without seeking additional evidence or testimony from relevant witnesses.
    * No independent inquiries were made by the administrative body to verify the claims presented against the complainant.
    * The administrative body failed to review any documentation or records that could have contradicted the allegations.
    * The decision-making process of the administrative body lacked any indication of an independent assessment of the facts.
    * The administrative body did not consult with experts or conduct any field investigations related to the case.

  • Element 3. The proceeding ended in the plaintiff’s favor. The case was resolved in favor of the person who was wrongfully accused, meaning they won and proved that the earlier legal action against them was unjust and without proper cause.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The administrative agency dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint due to lack of evidence.
    * The plaintiff received a formal letter from the agency stating that the case was closed in their favor.
    * A hearing officer ruled that the allegations against the plaintiff were unfounded and without merit.
    * The plaintiff was awarded costs and fees after the administrative proceeding concluded.
    * The agency’s final decision explicitly stated that the plaintiff did not violate any regulations.

  • Element 4. No reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances would have believed that there were reasonable grounds to bring the proceeding against the plaintiff. This means that a sensible person in the defendant’s situation wouldn’t have thought there was a good reason to start legal action against the plaintiff, suggesting that the defendant acted without proper justification or belief in the validity of their claims.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant had no prior knowledge of any wrongdoing by the plaintiff and relied solely on unverified information from a third party.
    * The defendant consulted with legal counsel before initiating the proceedings and was advised that there were no reasonable grounds to proceed against the plaintiff.
    * The defendant had a longstanding professional relationship with the plaintiff, which would have made it unreasonable to believe that the plaintiff engaged in any misconduct.
    * The defendant failed to gather any evidence supporting the allegations before initiating the proceedings, indicating a lack of reasonable belief in the claims.
    * The defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s reputation for honesty and integrity, which should have dissuaded any reasonable person from pursuing the action.

  • Element 5. The defendant acted primarily for a purpose other than succeeding on the merits of the claim. This means that the person who started the legal action did so mainly to achieve something other than winning the case, like trying to harm the other person or gain an unfair advantage, rather than genuinely seeking justice or a fair resolution.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant filed the administrative complaint solely to harass the plaintiff and damage their reputation in the community.
    * The defendant had a history of personal animosity towards the plaintiff, which motivated the filing of the claim rather than a genuine belief in its merits.
    * The defendant publicly stated their intention to use the administrative proceedings as a means to retaliate against the plaintiff for a prior dispute.
    * The timing of the defendant’s complaint coincided with a significant business deal involving the plaintiff, suggesting an ulterior motive to disrupt the plaintiff’s success.
    * The defendant failed to present any credible evidence to support their claims during the administrative proceedings, indicating a lack of genuine intent to pursue the matter on its merits.

  • Element 6. The plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff must show that they suffered some kind of damage or injury, such as financial loss or emotional distress, as a result of the wrongful legal actions taken against them.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff incurred significant legal fees while defending against the baseless administrative proceedings initiated by the defendant.
    * The plaintiff suffered emotional distress and anxiety due to the prolonged nature of the wrongful administrative actions.
    * The plaintiff’s reputation was damaged in the community as a result of the public nature of the administrative proceedings.
    * The plaintiff experienced lost business opportunities directly linked to the time and resources spent addressing the wrongful claims.
    * The plaintiff was subjected to harassment and intimidation from third parties who were aware of the administrative proceedings initiated against them.

  • Element 7. The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. The defendant’s actions played a significant role in causing the harm that the plaintiff experienced, meaning that what the defendant did directly contributed to the problems the plaintiff faced in the legal situation.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant initiated administrative proceedings against the plaintiff without any reasonable basis, leading to significant legal expenses for the plaintiff.
    * The defendant provided false information to authorities, which directly resulted in the initiation of the wrongful administrative action against the plaintiff.
    * The defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to suffer reputational damage, impacting their personal and professional relationships.
    * The administrative proceedings initiated by the defendant were ultimately dismissed, confirming the lack of merit in the claims against the plaintiff.
    * The defendant continued to pursue the administrative action despite knowing it was baseless, demonstrating a disregard for the plaintiff’s rights.

(See Crowley v. Katleman, 881 P. 2d 1083 (Cal: Supreme Court 1994). California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 1502.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a claim of Malicious Prosecution – Wrongful Use of Administrative Proceedings, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.

Prove Your CA Malicious Prosecution – Wrongful Use of Administrative Proceedings Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.