12 Cal. App. 5th 218
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Gingko Rose (landlord) sued six tenants, including Hart and Rodriguez, in unlawful detainer actions for unpaid rent; bench trial proceeded for Hart and Rodriguez.
- After Gingko Rose rested, Hart and Rodriguez moved under Code Civ. Proc. § 631.8 for judgment (directed verdict) on multiple grounds; the court denied part of the motion immediately, took remainder under submission, and later denied the rest after the tenants presented their case.
- The unlawful detainer court ultimately issued a statement of decision ruling for Hart and Rodriguez; other pending unlawful detainer suits were later dismissed by Gingko Rose.
- The six tenants then sued Gingko Rose and related parties for malicious prosecution; defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to Hart and Rodriguez, arguing the § 631.8 denial established 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of prior court minutes/transcript | Judicial notice improper or hearsay bars reliance on those records | Records of a court are judicially noticeable and court rulings/basis are non‑hearsay official records | Trial court did not abuse discretion taking judicial notice of minute orders and transcript; appropriate to consider the prior court's stated ruling and basis |
| Does interim adverse judgment rule apply to denial of § 631.8 motion? | (limited) Denial should not be treated as interim adverse judgment here | Denial after weighing plaintiff's evidence is equivalent to nonsuit/summary‑judgment denial and establishes probable cause | Yes; denial of § 631.8 motion on the merits counts as interim adverse judgment and conclusive proof of probable cause absent fraud |
| Was the § 631.8 denial nonmerits or not based on weighing evidence? | The denial here was not on the merits (court didn’t expressly state weighing) or was effectively granted later | Record shows court had power to weigh evidence, explicitly considered motion in stages and denied it on the merits | Court presumed proper performance of duties; denial was on the merits (court weighed the evidence); rejecting tenants’ contention that denial was not an on‑the‑merits ruling |
| Any barrier to applying the rule (fraud or law‑of‑the‑case from anti‑SLAPP ruling)? | Prior appellate anti‑SLAPP decision found lack of probable cause and thus law of the case | No applicable impediment; no evidence of fraud to procure the § 631.8 denial, and statutory changes limit use of anti‑SLAPP rulings | No impediment: tenants failed to show fraud; anti‑SLAPP findings do not bar application here; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, 28 Cal.4th 811 (recognizing interim adverse judgment rule and that certain interim rulings establish probable cause)
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (elements and standard for malicious prosecution; legally tenable/probable cause inquiry)
- Vicks, In re, 56 Cal.4th 274 (limits on taking judicial notice of the truth of prior court factual findings; permissible to note prior court's ruling and basis)
- Plumley v. Mockett, 164 Cal.App.4th 1031 (interim adverse judgment rule and exception for judgments induced by perjury/fraud)
- People v. Mobil Oil Corp., 143 Cal.App.3d 261 (ruling that a court’s ruling on a motion for judgment is limited to the evidence presented at the time the motion is made)