Opinion ID: 3051078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants Death Row and Interscope

Text: [5] The Tuckers first assert that they could prove malice to a jury because they have contested factual allegations made in the complaints in Death Row v. Tucker and Interscope v. Tucker. A “bare assertion that [defendants] ‘fabricated’ evidence” does not show malice. Sangster v. Paetkau, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 66, 75 (Ct. App. 1998); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).14 The Tuckers’ evidence comprises only Mrs. Tucker’s deposition testimony that the underlying cases were “lies, and that’s the reason this [malicious prosecution] suit was filed,” and similar statements by Mr. Tucker. These unsubstantiated assertions do not create a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of malice. Moreover, “the fact there may be some disputed facts relevant to the merits of the underlying action does not by itself defeat a motion for summary judgment in a malicious prosecution action.” Sangster, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 76. [6] The Tuckers also argue that the district court erred in 14 The Tuckers mistakenly rely on Axline v. Saint John’s Hospital and Health Center, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385 (Ct. App. 1998), disapproved on other grounds by Hassan v. Mercy Am. River Hosp., 74 P.3d 726 (Cal. 2003), for the proposition that a malicious-prosecution plaintiff can defeat a motion for summary judgment by alleging that the defendant knew that the information upon which he or she based the underlying claim was false. Axline, however, dealt with a dismissal following the trial court’s sustaining of a demurrer, the California equivalent of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Axline, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 387 (“When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”). For purposes of a demurrer, California courts treat all allegations in the complaint as true. C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 211 Cal. Rptr. 765, 768 (Ct. App. 1984). To defeat a summary judgment motion, by contrast, the non-moving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials” in the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The non-moving party must establish the existence of a genuine factual dispute on the basis of admissible evidence; bare allegations without evidentiary support are insufficient to survive summary judgment. 1810 ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS granting summary judgment on the basis of lack of malice when there were genuine issues of fact regarding the existence of probable cause for some claims brought in the underlying litigation. But the fact that the district court found triable issues of fact as to probable cause for some claims, without more, is insufficient to survive summary judgment based on lack of malice. See Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford Inc., 43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 148, 161 (Ct. App. 2006) (“Malice cannot be established simply by a showing of the absence of probable cause. . . .”); Downey, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 153-54 (holding that underlying claim’s “lack[ of] legal tenability . . . without more, would not . . . permit the inference [of malice]” and requiring that “the presence of malice . . . be established by other, additional evidence”). As explained above, malice requires proof of a defendant’s subjective state of mind; a “conclusion that probable cause [as an objective inquiry] is absent logically tells the trier of fact nothing about the defendant’s subjective state of mind.” Downey, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 153. Even if we were to agree with the dissent that probable cause was lacking for many of the claims alleged in Death Row v. Tucker and Interscope v. Tucker, the evidence provided by the Tuckers is simply not probative of the subjective intent in filing the underlying lawsuits. In Padres, the Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of malice15 because, in addition to the lack of probable cause, the defendant filed repeated actions against the plaintiff “in order to interfere with and/or derail” the plaintiff’s business venture. 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 605. This evidence of subjective intent was in addition to the lack of probable cause and was sufficient to defeat summary judg15 In Padres the defendant moved to strike the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) statute. Defeating an anti-SLAPP motion requires the plaintiff to “make a prima facie showing of facts that would be sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment under the applicable evidentiary standard.” Padres, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 594. ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS 1811 ment. See id. In HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co., 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786 (Ct. App. 2004), the court similarly found that the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of malice sufficient to defeat the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion when it produced evidence that the defendant knew the underlying suit lacked any factual basis, took no depositions, and offered to accept $25,000 in exchange for dismissing the case. Id. at 796-97. “These facts could support a conclusion that [defendant] was simply trying to squeeze a settlement from [plaintiff] on a baseless case, and hence evidence of malice.” Id. at 797. The Tuckers argue that they, too, have produced evidence of malice with respect to Death Row and Interscope. Specifically, they rely on a two-page advertisement taken out in the October 1995 issue of The Source, a popular hip-hop magazine, which they characterize as “calling for Mrs. Tucker’s elimination,”16 and derogatory references to Mrs. Tucker in the songs “How Do U Want It” and “Wonda Why They Call U Bitch” on Tupac’s 1996 album All Eyez on Me.17 The Tuckers 16 One page of the advertisement features in large type the words “DEATH ROW RECORDS” and promotes Snoop Dogg’s latest album “Dogg Food from Tha Dogg Pound.” The artists featured on the release are listed, and include Dr. Dre, Daz, and Kurupt. The facing page, in the same large type, features the words “FREEDOM FIGHTERS” and lists, in a similar fashion, the names of twelve legendary civil rights advocates, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Sojourner Truth. Mrs. Tucker’s name appears at the bottom of the list slashed through with a red line. The page also includes a quotation from King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” and a quotation by Knight, dated August 28, 1995: “ ‘Whether it’s freedom for our people or freedom for our people to say what’s on their minds the fight lives on . . .’ ” (ellipsis in original). Knight is identified as “CEO Death Row Records.” 17 “How Do U Want It” addresses Mrs. Tucker as a “muthafucka” and berates her because “instead of trying to help a nigga you destroy a brotha, worst than the others.” In “U Wonda Why They Call U Bitch,” Tupac raps, “Dear Ms. Delores [sic] Tucker, you keep stressin’ me, fuckin with a motherfuckin’ mind. I figured you wanted to know, you know, why we call them ho’s bitches. Maybe this might help you understand. It ain’t personal. It’s strictly business, baby, strictly business.” These lyrics were the subject of separate litigation. See Tucker v. Fischbein, 237 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2001); Tucker v. MTS, Inc., 229 F.3d 1139 (3d Cir. 2000) (Table) (unpublished). 1812 ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS assert that a jury could infer from the ad and lyrics that Death Row and Interscope harbored hostility toward Mrs. Tucker and that they brought the underlying lawsuits for the improper purpose of chilling her anti-rap campaign. [7] We disagree because under California law malice is shown through evidence of “the subjective mental state of the defendant in instituting the prior action.” Downey Venture, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 152 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). This is not a case like Padres, where repeated actions were filed, or HMS Capital were no depositions were taken and questionable settlement tactics were pursued. Here, even assuming the Tuckers produced sufficient evidence from which a jury could connect the ad in The Source or Tupac’s lyrics to either Interscope or Death Row,18 such conduct occurred months after the suits were initiated and is simply not probative of either party’s subjective intent in filing the underlying litigation. Placing an ad to promote Snoop Dogg’s latest album, or calling out an individual in lyrics—even if done so in a shocking and degrading way— does not present any of the “hallmark[s]” of a lawsuit brought for an improper purpose. See Sierra Club, supra, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 1157. Nor does Zamos address this question.19 On this 18 The Tuckers have failed to show a factual link between the ad in The Source and Interscope. The ad itself is silent as to Interscope and, presumably, for Interscope to be liable the Tuckers would have to show that Interscope was directly involved in the ad, or that Interscope, as the exclusive distributor of Death Row’s music, managed and controlled Death Row to the extent that Death Row was a mere agent or instrumentality of Interscope, see Marr v. Postal Union Life Ins. Co., 105 P.2d 649, 654-55 (Cal. 1940) (establishing factors by which a parent corporation may be liable for the torts of a subsidiary). The Tuckers have failed to do either. As to the derogatory references to Mrs. Tucker in All Eyez On Me, the fact that Death Row produced the album and that Interscope distributed it do not tie either defendant to the derogatory lyrics. No reasonable finder of fact could infer from the lyrics that Death Row or Interscope harbored malice towards Mrs. Tucker and filed the prior, underlying lawsuits for that reason. 19 Zamos is the only California authority cited by the dissent for the proposition that “malice [by parties] in continuing a lawsuit is [ ] actionESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS 1813 record, no California authority supports, nor could any reasonable finder of fact infer, that this post-filing conduct was probative of why the parties filed Interscope v. Tucker and Death Row v. Tucker. [8] The Tuckers next assert that a jury could infer improper purpose from the fact that Death Row and Interscope prosecuted the underlying lawsuits for three years without seeking a hearing on their claims for injunctive relief and then voluntarily dismissed the suits. In light of the Tuckers’ own discovery delays, for which they were sanctioned, the mere fact that the litigation never progressed to a hearing or trial on the merits is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding malice. Nor do the voluntary dismissals in Death Row v. Tucker and Interscope v. Tucker suggest that Death Row and Interscope initiated those lawsuits believing their claims to be meritless. Cf. Sierra Club, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 740 (rejecting argument that post-dismissal settlement was “[ ]relevant to the issue of [defendant’s] state of mind for purposes of the malicious prosecution”). The Tuckers produced no evidence to undermine Defendants’ explanation that they dismissed Death Row v. Tucker and Interscope v. Tucker upon the termination of their contractual relationship, at which point most of the underlying claims for injunctive relief became moot and the underlying claims for damages, given that the Tuckers were judgment-proof, became futile. Nor could a jury reasonably infer that the statements in the Defendants’ motions that the Tuckers were judgment-proof were somehow “windowdressing meant to disguise the absence of any fact supporting the outrageous claims asserted.” Dissent at 1832. To the contrary, the California Court of Appeal has encouraged timely dismissals, noting that: able.” Dissent at 1837. But, the post-filing behavior at issue in Zamos involved an attorney who continued to prosecute a case after discovering facts demonstrating that the lawsuit had no merit. That case does not contemplate whether post-filing conduct by the parties evinces malice in initiating the suit. 1814 ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS the law favors the early resolution of disputes, including voluntary dismissal of suits when the plaintiff becomes convinced he cannot prevail or otherwise chooses to forego the action. This policy would be ill-served by a rule which would virtually compel the plaintiff to continue his litigation in order to place himself in the best posture for defense of a malicious prosecution action. Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co., 264 Cal. Rptr. 883, 897-98 (Ct. App. 1989) (citation omitted). [9] Finally, the Tuckers assert they can demonstrate malice on the ground that Interscope named only Mrs. Tucker (and Atlantic Ventures nominally) as a defendant. Given that the strongest evidence supporting Interscope’s claims was the August 7 letter bearing Mrs. Tucker’s name, the decision to name only Mrs. Tucker rather than other members of the NPC and its Entertainment Commission reflects a prudent litigation decision and is not evidence that the parties knowingly brought an action without probable cause or that they harbored especial ill will towards Mrs. Tucker. [10] In sum, we agree with the district court’s legal conclusion that the Tuckers did not produce sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that either Death Row or Interscope pursued the underlying litigation out of malice. C. Attorney-Defendants Ortner, Thomas, Kenner, and Paul Hastings [11] To show that attorney-Defendants Ortner, Thomas, Kenner, and the law firm of Paul Hastings acted with malice in pursuing the underlying litigation on behalf of their clients, the Tuckers must do more than rely on the evidence relating to Death Row and Interscope’s own purposes in initiating Death Row v. Tucker and Interscope v. Tucker. See Zeavin, 186 Cal. Rptr. at 548 (rejecting the “argument of joint liability ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS 1815 of attorney and client for the conduct of each other where both are joined as defendants in a malicious prosecution action” and noting that “the client is not the agent of his attorney”); see also Morrison v. Rudolph, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 747, 752 (Ct. App. 2004) (“ ‘Usually, the client imparts information upon which the attorney relies in determining whether probable cause exists for initiating a proceeding. The rule is that the attorney may rely on those statements as a basis for exercising judgment and providing advice, unless the client’s representations are known to be false.’ ” (quoting Mallen & Smith, Legal Malpractice (5th ed. 2000) § 6.19, p. 620) (emphasis added)), disapproved of on other grounds by Zamos, 87 P.3d at 802. To ultimately prevail against any of the attorney-Defendants, the Tuckers must show “other, additional evidence” that demonstrates the attorney’s own malice or knowing lack of probable cause. Swat-Fame, 101 Cal. App. 4th 613 at 634 (citing Downey Venture, 66 Cal. App. 4th at 498); see also Ross v. Kish, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 484, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding that “because the evidence suggests [the attorney-defendant] knew the claims for breach of contract and legal malpractice lacked factual and legal support[,] . . . a trier of fact reasonably could infer [the defendant-attorney] filed the action with malice”).
With respect to the abuse of process claim in Death Row v. Tucker, the Tuckers have raised a triable issue of fact under the above standard. A reasonable fact-finder could infer from Kenner’s drafting of the complaint that Kenner knew the abuse of process claim lacked merit.20 In drafting the com20 The fact that Kenner included multiple causes of action in the complaint, some of which were pled properly on the known facts at the time of filing, does not affect our determination that Kenner’s abuse of process claim raises a triable issue of fact regarding malice. Under California law, “it is not necessary that the whole proceeding be utterly groundless, for, if groundless charges are maliciously and without probable cause, coupled 1816 ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS plaint, Kenner alleged that Mrs. Tucker’s “wrongful use of the criminal and civil justice system” was an abuse of process under California state law. The only fact in the complaint to support that allegation was that “[Suge] Knight was specifically threatened that as a result of [Tucker’s] power and influence that [he] would spend the rest of his life in jail.” Even if Kenner sincerely relied on his client’s representations that such a threat was made by Tucker, Kenner’s use of that allegation to state an abuse of process claim provides a triable issue as to whether Kenner did so with malice. [12] This is because under well-established California law, the tort of abuse of process “requires misuse of a judicial process.” Stolz v. Wong Commc’ns Ltd. P’ship, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1811, 1822 (Ct. App. 1994). It is a process that is “pursuant to authority of [a] court.” Meadows v. Bakersfield Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 59 Cal. Rptr. 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1967); see id. (“[T]he essence of the tort ‘abuse of process’ lies in the misuse of the power of the court; it is an act done in the name of the court and under its authority for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice.”); see also 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 517, pp.767-68. To succeed in an action for abuse of process, a litigant must establish that the defendant (1) contemplated an ulterior motive in using the judicial process, and (2) committed “a willful act in the use of th[at] process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.” Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., 728 P.2d 1202, 1209 (Cal. 1986). Misuse of an administrative proceeding—even one that is quasiwith others which are well founded, they are not on that account less injurious, and, therefore, [even one charge can] constitute a valid cause of action.” Crowley v. Katleman, 881 P.2d 1083, 1088 (Cal. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bertero v. Nat’l Gen. Corp., 529 P.2d 608 (Cal. 1974) (approving a jury instruction allowing the jury to find for the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action even if only one of the three theories of liability pleaded in the underlying action lacked probable cause). ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS 1817 judicial—does not support a claim for abuse of process. Stolz, 25 Cal. App. 4th at 1823-25 (noting that there is “no authority” that extends the tort to administrative proceedings). Nor is there any authority—Kenner’s citation to Standing Committee on Discipline v. Ross not withstanding—that threats made outside of the judicial process can form the basis for an abuse of process claim. See Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1984) (threatening criminal charges to obtain an advantage in an ongoing civil action subjected lawyer to disciplinary proceedings). [13] Here, in drafting the abuse of process claim, Kenner relied on vague language about “wrongful use of the criminal and civil justice system” despite clearly established law that requires misuse of a court process.21 Moreover, he supported the claim with the mere factual assertion that Tucker would use her “influence” to ensure that Knight went to jail. These circumstances raise a genuine triable issue of fact as to Kenner’s “subjective mental state . . . in instituting the [claim].” Downey Venture, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 152. A fact-finder could reasonably infer from Kenner’s drafting of the complaint that he did not believe the claim was valid when filed, or that the claim was instituted for an improper purpose.22 21 For this reason, although Kenner invites us to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis that he had probable cause to include the abuse of process claim in Death Row v. Tucker, he has utterly failed, on this record, to demonstrate that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We therefore have no basis on which to affirm on this alternative ground. 22 We also note that the only additional evidence that Kenner obtained after he filed the complaint, according to his own deposition, was that, “[Tucker] apparently did call the Justice Department, I think Janet Reno directly, and I think she called Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and I think she called the FBI . . . there [may have been] an investigation that followed.” Even assuming arguendo that such complaints or investigations occurred, the tort of abuse of process lies in the misuse of the power of the court. Meadows, 59 Cal. Rptr. at 37. Under these circumstances, a reasonable fact-finder could infer, as recognized in Zamos, that Kenner’s continued prosecution of the abuse of process claim, after learning that it had no merit, was evidence of a malicious intent. See also Sycamore Ridge Apt’s v. Naumann, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 561, 579-81 (Ct. App. 2007) (applying Zamos). 1818 ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS 2. Ortner, Thomas, Paul Hastings and the Remaining Claims against Kenner [14] With respect to Ortner, Thomas, Paul Hastings, and the remaining claims against Kenner, the Tuckers fail to pinpoint how any of the evidence in the record suggests that any of the attorney-Defendants filed Death Row v. Tucker and Interscope v. Tucker for a purpose other than honoring their clients’ wishes. The Tuckers have not shown, with respect to these remaining claims, that the attorneys affirmatively knew that the factual bases for the underlying suits to be false at the time the suits were filed, cf. Morrison, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 752. Nor have the Tuckers shown that any attorney-Defendant continued to prosecute any of the remaining claims after learning that they were not supported by probable cause. Zamos, 87 P.3d at 810. Given this lack of evidence, the district court correctly concluded that no reasonable trier of fact could find that the attorney-Defendants, with the exception of Kenner’s claim for abuse of process, acted with malice when they filed the underlying litigation on behalf of Death Row and Interscope.23 V. Loss of Consortium Mr. Tucker’s claim for loss of consortium was derivative of his wife’s cause of action for malicious prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all the Kenner and Interscope Defendants, in part, on the basis that Mr. Tucker’s claim was tied to the malicious prosecution claims, which the court determined did not survive summary judgment. Were this the only basis for the court’s disposition 23 The dissent provides no legal authority from a California court for its assertion that a decision to file numerous claims is probative of malice. Dissent at 1835-36. Nor does the “two against one” posture of the underlying litigation, see id. at 1838, establish any triable issue regarding malice. ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS 1819 of this claim, reversal might well be warranted because we have concluded that the malicious prosecution claim must proceed as to Kenner. See Snyder v. Michael’s Stores, Inc., 945 P.2d 781, 785 (Cal. 1997) (“One spouse cannot have a loss of consortium claim without a prior disabling injury to the other spouse.”). However, the district court also reached the merits of Mr. Tucker’s claim and concluded on the limited evidentiary record that, “the harm . . . is more akin to a loss of society and companionship than the type of longstanding and debilitating impairment to the relationship necessary to support a loss of consortium.” We can affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on any basis supported by the record, and we agree. To support a loss of consortium claim, marital spouses must allege that their partner suffered an injury that is “sufficiently serious and disabling to raise the inference that the conjugal relationship is more than superficially or temporarily impaired.” Molien v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 616 P.2d 813, 823 (Cal. 1980); Anderson v. Northrop Corp., 250 Cal. Rptr. 189, 195 (Ct. App. 1988) (same). The injury may be physical or psychological, but psychological injury must “rise[ ] to the level of a ‘neurosis, psychosis, chronic depression, or phobia’ [to be] sufficient to substantially disturb the marital relationship.” Anderson, 250 Cal. Rptr. at 195, quoting Molien, 616 P.2d at 813. [15] We agree with the district court that Mr. Tucker’s testimony does not raise a triable issue as to psychological injury sufficiently serious or disabling as to raise an inference that his relationship with his wife was more than superficially impaired. Therefore, the district court properly granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgement as to Mr. Tucker’s loss of consortium claims. 1820 ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS VI.