holding that “the mere filing or maintenance 26 27 5 Miles also identifies attorney Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell and the law firm of Burke, Williams & 1 of a lawsuit—even for an improper purpose—is not a proper basis for an abuse of process 2 action”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “the mere filing or maintenance 26 27 5 Miles also identifies attorney Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell and the law firm of Burke, Williams & 1 of a lawsuit—even for an improper purpose—is not a proper basis for an abuse of process 2 action”
- stating that “the laek-of-probablecause requirement in the malicious prosecution tort plays a crucial role in protecting the right to seek judicial relief*’ and in preventing an “improper ‘chilling’ of the right to seek redress in court.”
- holding that the filing and continued pursuit of a CEQA action for the “ulterior” purpose of extorting a monetary settlement could not give rise to a claim for abuse of process
- explaining that the gist of the plaintiff's abuse of process claim was that the defendants improperly instituted a proceeding against the plaintiff
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment, but I would reach the result by relying on the well-reasoned opinion in Asia Investment Co. v. Borowski (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 832 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 317 , 30 A.L.R.4th 561 ]: the reception into evidence of statements made by the parties or counsel during the course of settlement negotiations is clearly contrary to the provisions and fundamental purpose of the privilege contained in Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2. This court unanimously denied a hearing in that case.
Though arguably merely dictum, the discussion of the majority may serve to inhibit the forthright interchange essential for successful settlement negotiations. In order to avoid a subsequent action for abuse of process, or some similar cause of action, the parties and particularly the lawyers hereafter may be unduly guarded, rather than free and open, in discussions designed to prevent or terminate litigation. Such a result ill-serves the strong public interest in the settlement of controversies.
*1171 Those who seek to strictly enforce the California Environmental Quality Act have a variety of motivations. Some sue for aesthetic considerations, some out of concern for the effect on flora and fauna, some to maintain or achieve a healthful environment, still others merely to protect or enhance the value of their property. It is the latter group of persons who are most likely to inject monetary factors into settlement negotiations. Proposals of that type are not improper, and for the reasons given above should not be admissible into evidence in subsequent litigation.
Bird, C. J., and Reynoso, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied February 11, 1987.