S.A. v. Maiden
229 Cal. App. 4th 27
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- S.A. sued N.A. and Maiden for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and IIED arising from N.A. and Maiden's DVPA restraining order proceedings.
- DVPA proceedings were initiated by N.A. against S.A. in family court; Maiden represented N.A. and assisted in extensions/amendments of the orders.
- Trial court granted N.A. and Maiden anti-SLAPP motions to strike; court treated DVPA as a family law motion under Bidna v. Rosen.
- Court awarded sanctions against N.A. for extensions of the TRO; S.A. appealed the judgments in Maiden's favor.
- The appellate court analyzed whether each claim (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, IIED) could survive under the anti-SLAPP framework.
- Court ultimately affirmed the anti-SLAPP rulings, holding there was no prima facie probability of prevailing on any claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether malicious prosecution is barred by anti-SLAPP | S.A. contends there is probability to prevail on malicious prosecution. | Maiden and N.A. argue Bidna bars such claims arising from DVPA motions. | Yes; probability not shown; barred under Bidna. |
| Whether abuse of process survives anti-SLAPP | S.A. asserts abuse of process due to meritless DVPA actions. | Abuse requires misuse of court process, which is not shown here; likely barred similarly. | No; not established, barred by anti-SLAPP. |
| Whether IIED claim is barred by litigation privilege | S.A. argues IIED from DVPA actions; seek damages for distress. | Privilege bars IIED arising from judicial proceedings. | Yes; IIED barred by litigation privilege and no probability shown. |
| Application of Bidna v. Rosen to DVPA proceedings | DVPA orders are not family law motions per Bidna. | DVPA orders fall within Bidna’s family law motion framework. | DVPA orders are family law motions; Bidna applies to bar the claims. |
| Whether Nicholson v. Fazeli undermines Bidna in this DVPA context | Nicholson could permit some DVPA-related claims. | Nicholson does not apply to DVPA-type actions; Bidna controls. | Nicholson not controlling; Bidna applies; claims barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bidna v. Rosen, 19 Cal.App.4th 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990s) (bright-line rule barring malicious prosecution from family law motions)
- Nicholson v. Fazeli, 113 Cal.App.4th 1091 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (limits Bidna; ordinary civil actions originating in family law not exempt)
- Siam v. Kizilbash, 130 Cal.App.4th 1563 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (barring malicious prosecution for dismissals under other statutes (527.6/527.8 context))
- Robinzine v. Vicory, 143 Cal.App.4th 1416 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (malicious prosecution cannot rest on restraining order petitions under similar schemes)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 2003) (malicious prosecution arising from prior judicial proceedings)
- Ramona Unified School Dist. v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal.App.4th 510 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishes abuse of process from malicious prosecution; litigation context)
- Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., 42 Cal.3d 1157 (Cal. 1986) (litigation privilege; glass ceiling for IIED in litigation context)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (litigation privilege scope applied to tort claims arising from litigation)