Hart v. Darwish, B270513

Background

Gingko Rose (owners: David and Barbara Darwish; general partner Logerm LLC) sued six tenants, including Wayne Hart and Carlos Rodriguez, in separate unlawful detainer actions for unpaid rent. Rosenthal & Associates represented Gingko Rose.
At the bench trial for Hart and Rodriguez, defendants moved for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure §631.8 after Gingko Rose rested. The unlawful detainer court denied the motion in stages and later issued a statement of decision ruling for Hart and Rodriguez.
Gingko Rose later dismissed the remaining unlawful detainer actions against the other tenants.
All six tenants sued defendants for malicious prosecution seeking damages; defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings for Hart and Rodriguez based on the §631.8 denial establishing probable cause.
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants as to Hart and Rodriguez and denied a new trial; Hart and Rodriguez appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly took judicial notice of the unlawful detainer minute orders and transcript	Judicial notice was improper or insufficient because of document captions and hearsay limits	Judicial records (minutes and transcripts) are proper for judicial notice and the court can consider the prior court’s stated basis for its ruling	Judicial notice was proper; the minute orders and transcript are records of a state court and their stated rulings/bases are admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of showing the prior court’s basis
Whether the "interim adverse judgment" rule (that certain interim rulings in favor of a prior plaintiff establish probable cause and bar malicious prosecution) applies to denial of a §631.8 motion	Hart/Rodriguez did not contest the rule generally but argued the §631.8 denial here was not a merits denial and thus should not trigger the rule	Denial of a §631.8 motion (after weighing plaintiff’s evidence at close of plaintiff’s case) is an on-the-merits finding that the plaintiff met its burden sufficient to invoke the interim adverse judgment rule	The rule applies to denials of §631.8 motions; the unlawful detainer court denied the motion on the merits, so that denial establishes, barring fraud, that defendants had probable cause
Whether fraud or law-of-the-case prevents applying the interim adverse judgment rule to bar malicious prosecution	Darwish testimony was allegedly false; earlier appellate anti-SLAPP ruling found lack of probable cause and is law of the case	Any false testimony was not the but-for cause of the §631.8 denial; the appellate anti‑SLAPP decision did not consider the §631.8 denial (new record) so law-of-the-case does not apply	Fraud claim fails because the §631.8 denial was not induced by the alleged false testimony; law-of-the-case does not bar reliance on the §631.8 ruling because the relevant issue (effect of §631.8 denial) was not previously decided and the record changed materially

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, 28 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2002) (interim adverse judgment rule: certain interim rulings in favor of a plaintiff establish probable cause for the prior suit)
Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989) (elements and objective standard for malicious prosecution)
Siebel v. Mittlesteadt, 41 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2007) (malicious prosecution elements reiterated)
Plumley v. Mockett, 164 Cal.App.4th 1031 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (interim adverse judgment does not apply if prior ruling induced by knowingly false testimony)
Roberts v. Sentry Life Ins. Co., 76 Cal.App.4th 375 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (denial of summary judgment as evidence the suit was not totally without merit)