Opinion ID: 3051078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Malicious Prosecution Litigation

Text: Within a month of the dismissal, the Tuckers filed their complaint in Tucker v. Interscope in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The complaint charged Interscope, Death Row, Ortner, and Paul Hastings (“Interscope Defendants”) with malicious use of civil proceedings, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional harm, common law civil conspiracy, and racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Upon Defendants’ motion, the case was transferred to the Central District of California. The Tuckers later successfully moved to withdraw all but the malicious prosecution and loss of consortium claims. The Tuckers filed their complaint in Tucker v. Kenner in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming Kenner and Thomas as defendants (“Kenner Defendants”), along with five other defendants who were subsequently dismissed, and again invoking diversity jurisdiction.5 5 The district court and the parties relied on California law in both cases, as do we. Neither party has argued that Pennsylvania law should apply in 1800 ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS The Kenner complaint similarly raised claims for malicious prosecution and loss of consortium, in addition to abuse of process, slander, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court later dismissed all but the malicious prosecution and loss of consortium claims. After discovery, the Interscope and Kenner Defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment based on (1) an affirmative defense of unclean hands; (2) lack of favorable termination; (3) existence of probable cause; (4) lack of malice; (5) insufficient evidence of damages; and (6) no loss of consortium. The district court granted the motion on the basis of insufficient evidence of damages and no loss of consortium but declined to address the other issues on the ground that they were moot. We reversed the summary judgment rulings in both cases in an unpublished memorandum disposition. See Tucker v. Kenner, 85 F. App’x 610 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2004) (unpublished).6 We remanded with instructions to the district court to consider the remaining grounds for summary judgment: unclean hands; lack of favorable termination; existence of probable cause; and lack of malice. Id. at 614. On remand, the Interscope and Kenner Defendants again filed for summary judgment asserting: (1) an unclean hands affirmative defense; (2) lack of favorable termination; (3) no loss of consortium; and (4) existence of probable cause for the underlying claims; and (5) lack of malice. In Tucker v. Interscope, the district court concluded that genuine issues of fact existed as to favorable termination and Defendants’ affirmative defense of unclean hands. It conthe Interscope case. See C.N.R. Atkin v. Smith, 137 F.3d 1169, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The district court applied California law to this dispute and neither party objected. Therefore, we consider the parties to have waived any objection to the application of California law.”). 6 We consolidated Tucker v. Kenner with Tucker v. Interscope for purposes of the appeal from the initial summary judgments. ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS 1801 cluded, however, that all Interscope Defendants had probable cause to pursue claims for intentional interference with contractual relationship, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and unfair business practices and unfair competition. However, regarding Interscope, Ortner, and Paul Hastings, the district court found that genuine issues of fact existed as to whether they had probable cause to pursue the claims for inducement to breach contract and inducement to breach fiduciary duty. Regarding Death Row, the district court found that genuine issues of fact existed as to whether it had probable cause to pursue the claims for RICO violations, state law extortion, and abuse of process. In addition, the district court concluded that the Tuckers “failed to produce any evidence to show that the Interscope Defendants acted with malice” in filing the underlying lawsuits and that Mr. Tucker’s alleged injuries were insufficient to support a claim for loss of consortium. It therefore dismissed the malicious prosecution claim based on insufficient evidence of malice and dismissed the loss of consortium claim because it was alleged as a derivative claim and because Mr. Tucker’s evidence was insufficient to establish a loss of consortium. The Tuckers timely appealed the district court’s judgment, Case No. 05-56045.7 In Tucker v. Kenner, the district court concluded that Kenner and Thomas had probable cause to pursue the claims for intentional interference with contractual relationship, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and unfair business practices and unfair competition. It concluded that material issues of fact remained whether Thomas had 7 After the Tuckers timely appealed the district court’s judgment, Case No. 05-56045, Death Row filed for bankruptcy. We granted a stay as to Death Row but allowed the Tuckers to proceed after the bankruptcy court granted their motion for relief from the automatic stay provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Although Death Row has been represented by counsel throughout the duration of this appeal, it has never filed a brief and did not make an appearance at oral argument. 1802 ESTATE OF TUCKER v. INTERSCOPE RECORDS probable cause to pursue the claims for inducement to breach contract and inducement to breach fiduciary duty and whether Kenner had probable cause to pursue the claim for abuse of process. The district court further concluded that material issues of fact remained as to favorable termination and Defendants’ unclean hands affirmative defense. As in Tucker v. Interscope, however, the district court concluded that the Tuckers “failed to produce any evidence to show that [Thomas] acted with malice” and therefore dismissed the malicious prosecution and loss of consortium claims against him. The court also dismissed the loss of consortium claim against Kenner for lack of evidence but did not address whether the Tuckers’ evidence could show that Kenner acted with malice. In response to this ambiguity, Kenner filed a second motion for summary judgment on the basis of lack of malice and for clarification of the court’s prior ruling. The district court’s subsequent ruling determined that the malicious prosecution claim against Kenner should be dismissed because “the evidence Plaintiffs offer in addition to this finding is insufficient to show that Kenner acted with malice.” Therefore, “[a] reasonable jury could not return a verdict in [the Tuckers’] favor” and summary judgment was warranted.8 The Tuckers timely appealed this judgment as well, Case No. 06-55376. 8