Crowley v. Katleman
881 P.2d 1083, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 386, 8 Cal. 4th 666 (1994)
Sections
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may maintain a cause of action for malicious prosecution when the prior action charged multiple grounds of liability and some, but not all, of those grounds were asserted with malice and without probable cause.
Facts:
- Beldon Katleman, a wealthy businessman, executed a will in 1976 naming his friend and attorney, Arthur Crowley, as the principal beneficiary and executor, explicitly disinheriting his potential heirs.
- Beldon married Carole Katleman in 1980; they remained married until his death in 1988, though the marriage was described as stormy.
- Upon Beldon's death, he had not revoked the 1976 will, and Crowley offered Carole one-half of the estate, which she refused, vowing to prevent Crowley from receiving anything.
- Carole filed a will contest alleging six separate grounds for invalidating the will, including undue influence, fraud, lack of testamentary capacity, and revocation.
- After a lengthy trial, the probate court ruled that none of the six grounds had merit and admitted the will to probate.
- Crowley subsequently filed a lawsuit against Carole and her attorneys, alleging that while one ground (undue influence) might have been technically tenable, the other five grounds were brought maliciously and without probable cause.
- Crowley alleged that the defendants knew the allegations regarding fraud, lack of capacity, and revocation were false but included them to increase the burden of litigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Crowley filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Katleman and her attorneys in the Superior Court (trial court).
- The defendants filed a general demurrer (motion to dismiss) arguing that because one ground of the will contest was valid, the entire malicious prosecution suit was barred.
- The Superior Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action.
- Crowley appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that the Bertero rule applied.
- The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a cause of action for malicious prosecution lie when the underlying lawsuit included multiple grounds for liability, and some of those grounds lacked probable cause while others may have been legally tenable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Mosk
Yes, a malicious prosecution claim is valid even if only some of the theories in the prior lawsuit were groundless. The Court reaffirmed the rule established in Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974), rejecting the defendants' argument that probable cause for one theory (undue influence) should immunize them from liability for the other five groundless theories. The Court reasoned that a defendant in a lawsuit is harmed by having to defend against "shotgun tactics" where a plaintiff throws every conceivable theory at the wall, regardless of merit. Asserting multiple theories increases the costs and psychological burden of defense. The Court rejected the "primary right" theory of pleading as inapplicable to the definition of probable cause in tort law. Furthermore, the Court held that judicial sanctions (monetary fines for bad behavior) are not an adequate substitute for a malicious prosecution tort, which allows a plaintiff to recover for emotional distress and reputational harm.
Dissenting - Justice Arabian
No, if a plaintiff has probable cause to assert a violation of a primary right on any one theory, a subsequent malicious prosecution suit should be barred. The dissent argued that the Bertero rule should be overruled because malicious prosecution is a "disfavored" cause of action that chills valid litigation. Justice Arabian contended that defending against alternative legal theories for a single claim (the validity of a will) is not significantly more burdensome than defending against a single theory. The dissent emphasized that modern legislative changes, such as statutory sanctions for frivolous filings, provide a better remedy for groundless theories within the original lawsuit, rather than spawning new, derivative litigation.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it firmly entrenched the "Bertero rule" in California law, rejecting attempts to narrow the scope of malicious prosecution torts. It serves as a warning to attorneys against "shotgun pleading"—the practice of alleging every possible legal theory even when some are known to be baseless. By distinguishing between the "primary right" theory (used for res judicata) and the requirements for malicious prosecution, the Court prioritized the protection of individuals from the harassment of groundless claims over the policy of free access to the courts. The decision clarifies that attorneys can be held liable for malicious prosecution if they knowingly include frivolous counts in a complaint, even if other counts in the same complaint have merit.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Crowley v. Katleman (1994)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"