Marefat v. Pall Corporation

Filed 1/19/07  Marefat v. Pall Corporation CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los  Angeles County.

Mel Red Recana, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Snyder ♦ Dorenfeld, David K. Dorenfeld, Michael D. Margolin for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Littler Mendelson, Robert S. Blumberg, Joshua Z. Feldman for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

            An employer asked the police to investigate a former employee's alleged theft of company computer equipment.  The ensuing criminal prosecution was resolved in favor of the former employee, who then sued the employer for instigating the criminal inquiry.  The trial court properly nonsuited the former employee:  the tort of abuse of process is not a viable theory of recovery under the circumstances presented here and, in any event, reports made to the police of suspected criminal activity are absolutely privileged.  We affirm the judgment in favor of the employer/defendant.

FACTS

            Appellant Ken Marefat was director of engineering at respondent Medsep Corporation.  Medsep provided Marefat with a removable computer hard drive, at Marefat's request.  In 2002, Marefat was laid off from his job.  After Marefat's exit interview, an inventory of his office revealed a laptop computer, but no removable hard drive.  Medsep was very concerned about the missing hard drive, which contained confidential company documents and files.

            Medsep asked Marefat to return the company's computer equipment.  When Marefat failed to promptly respond, Medsep contacted the police, for the purpose of retrieving the hard drive.  The police made several, ineffectual attempts to speak with Marefat.  The district attorney's office charged Marefat with grand theft.  The criminal proceeding ended in Marefat's favor.

            Following his acquittal, Marefat filed suit against Medsep and its parent, Pall Corporation.  The case was tried before a jury in 2005.  On a motion for nonsuit, the trial court dismissed Marefat's claim for abuse of process.  His claim for malicious prosecution was resolved by the jury.  In a special verdict, the jury found that respondents were actively involved in causing Marefat to be prosecuted, but that respondents â€