Opinion ID: 1160051
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Malicious prosecution of appeal.

Text: (7a) Plaintiffs alternatively maintain that recovery is permissible under the tort of malicious prosecution. Although they acknowledge that no California decision has approved a cause of action for the malicious prosecution of an appeal, they suggest this court's decision in Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43 [118 Cal. Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608, 53 A.L.R.3d 878] supports the creation of such a cause of action. (8) (See fn. 8.), (9) To prevail in an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove  among other elements  that the prior action ... was commenced by or at the direction of the defendant. ( Id., at p. 50.) [8] In Bertero, we recognized that that element need not be interpreted so narrowly as to encompass only the plaintiff in the original action, but could also apply to a defendant who maliciously filed a cross-complaint in the prior proceeding. Bertero explained: By seeking affirmative relief [through a cross-complaint] ... defendants ... did more than attempt to repel [plaintiff's] attack; they took the offensive in attempting to prosecute a cause of action of their own. (13 Cal.3d at p. 53.) (7b) Although plaintiffs suggest that the reasoning of Bertero supports a cause of action for the malicious filing of an appeal, we cannot agree. In Bertero, we emphasized that for many purposes cross-pleadings are treated as distinct and independent actions (13 Cal.3d at pp. 51-52; see also Skaff v. Small Claims Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 76, 78-79 [65 Cal. Rptr. 65, 435 P.2d 825]; Pacific Finance Corp. v. Superior Court (1933) 219 Cal. 179, 182-183 [25 P.2d 983, 90 A.L.R. 384]; McLellan v. McLellan (1972) 23 Cal. App.3d 343, 353 [100 Cal. Rptr. 258]) and concluded that no sound reason appears for treating a cause of action initiated by a cross-pleading as only an integral part of the cause initiated by the complaint. (13 Cal.3d at p. 51.) By contrast, filing an appeal is not a separate proceeding and has no independent existence ( Twyford v. Twyford (1976) 63 Cal. App.3d 916, 922 [134 Cal. Rptr. 145] [rejecting malicious prosecution claim based on filing of request for admission]); it is merely the continuation of an action. (See generally, 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 1, p. 33.) (10) (See fn. 9.), (7c) Based on the reasoning of Bertero, a defendant's appeal cannot be considered a separate action seeking affirmative relief, but rather is merely the continuation of an attempt to repel plaintiff's attack. [9]