Terrence M. Wyles v. Allen Zachary Sussman; Loeb & Loeb, L.L.P.

Denver, Colorado personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a malicious prosecution theory.



The parties do not dispute that in both Colorado and California, a claim for malicious prosecution requires the plaintiff to establish that the previous action, which was allegedly prosecuted maliciously (here the suit against Wyles by West Hills), ended in his favor. See Hewitt v. Rice, 154 P.3d 408, 411 (Colo. 2007) ("Generally, to prevail on a claim for malicious prosecution, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the defendant contributed to bringing a prior action against the plaintiff; (2) the prior action ended in favor of the plaintiff; (3) no probable cause; (4) malice; and (5) damages.” (emphasis added)); Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, 400 P.3d 1, 7 (Cal. 2017) ("The common law tort of malicious prosecution . . . consists of three elements. The underlying action must have been: (i) initiated or maintained by,

or at the direction of, the defendant, and pursued to a legal termination in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff; (ii) initiated or maintained without probable cause; and (iii) initiated or maintained with malice.” (emphasis added and citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). In particular, the termination must be based on the merits of the previous action in a manner indicating the nonliability of the malicious-prosecution plaintiff. See Hewitt, 154 P.3d at 410 ("Favorable termination is a question of law requiring an action to be resolved on the merits in favor of the

party claiming malicious prosecution.” (emphasis added)); Hewitt, 119 P.3d 541, 544 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 154 P.3d. 408 ("To show a termination in one's favor, a plaintiff must prove that the court passed on the merits of the charge or claim against him in such circumstances as to show one's innocence or non-liability, or show that the proceedings were terminated or abandoned at the instance of the defendant in circumstances that fairly imply the plaintiff's innocence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Siebel v. Mittlesteadt, 161 P.3d 527, 531 (Cal. 2007) (to establish favorable termination "the termination must reflect the merits of the action and plaintiff's innocence of the misconduct alleged in the lawsuit” (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Motion for summary judgment granted.



Affirmed