Singh v. McLaughlin
297 P.3d 514
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff operated US Market 107 and US Market 105; a business dispute among owners (Bains, Sidhu, Ditta, Din) led to litigation and attempts to remove plaintiff in 2008.
- Seven cameras at US Market 107 recorded June 26, 2008; video showed Ivan stealing beer while plaintiff served customers; Kuenzi and Mumey investigated for fraud.
- Defendant, counsel for US Market 107, reviewed the video and concluded plaintiff committed theft, identifying plaintiff despite footage suggesting otherwise.
- Kuenzi summoned police to arrest plaintiff; plaintiff was arrested at the store, while police were told of an arrest based on Kuenzi’s information.
- The next day, defendant filed a motion in related business litigation with Mumey’s affidavit alleging theft by plaintiff; a receiver was appointed; charges against plaintiff were later dismissed in August 2008.
- In April 2010, plaintiff filed suit for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process; the trial court granted a directed verdict for defendant; plaintiff appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False imprisonment by confinement caused by defendant | Plaintiff claims defendant actively encouraged the arrest. | Kuenzi initiated arrest independently; defendant was a passive observer. | Directed verdict improper; jury could find defendant’s active participation. |
| Malicious prosecution initiation and malice | Defendant orchestrated arrest to aid business litigation against plaintiff’s brother. | No malice or active initiation by defendant; arrest was not for ulterior purposes. | Directed verdict improper; jury could infer initiation by defendant and malice. |
| Abuse of process in connection with the receiver motion | Arrest was procured to leverage litigation against plaintiff. | Privilege as attorney acting for client; actions within proper process. | Directed verdict improper; jury could find ulterior purpose and misuse of process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Galvin, 253 Or 331 (1969) (instigation of arrest requires active participation)
- Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores, 269 Or 354 (1974) (malice can be inferred from lack of probable cause; initiation test)
- Reynolds v. Schrock, 341 Or 338 (2006) (crime or fraud exception to attorney-client privilege; outside privilege when lawyering to commit crime)
- Hiber v. Creditors Collection Service, 154 Or App 408 (1998) (attorney privilege not absolute; not applicable to bad faith/malice actions)