Pasternack v. Vision West Investments CA4/2
Two issues in this malicious prosecution action were bifurcated and tried first: (1) whether defendants had probable cause to file and maintain the collection action (the probable cause element); and (2) whether the collection action was terminated in favor of Pasternack (the favorable termination element). If necessary, the malice and damages elements of Pasternack’s malicious prosecution claim were to be tried later. Following the trial, the jury made 16 factual findings concerning what defendants—McFarland, McCullough, and McCullough APC—knew and believed at the time they filed the collection action in March 2007 and at later points through the time the collection action was voluntarily dismissed in January 2009. (CACI No. 1501.) After the jury returned its factual findings, the court made additional factual findings and found numerous facts to be undisputed.
Comments on Pasternack v. Vision West Investments CA4/2