Quantcast

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Plaintiff accuses defendant’s attorney of malicious prosecution over restraining order

State Court

A California woman has filed a lawsuit against her former boyfriend's attorney, accusing him of malicious prosecution in connection with a domestic violence restraining order. Jane Doe, the plaintiff, filed the complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on October 27, 2021, targeting Jack Dwosh, who represented her ex-boyfriend David Danon.

The case stems from a previous civil action where Doe was declared a vexatious litigant on August 22, 2019. This designation required her to obtain permission from the presiding judge before filing any new litigation. Despite this restriction, Doe managed to file a complaint on February 1, 2021, without prior approval. Her initial complaint included allegations of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against both Danon and Dwosh. However, the supervising judge later allowed her to pursue only the malicious prosecution claim.

Doe's claim centers around Dwosh's actions in July 2020 when he filed a petition for a domestic violence restraining order against her on behalf of Danon. This followed an earlier similar petition that had been denied two years prior. According to Doe, this second petition constituted malicious prosecution because it was allegedly filed without probable cause and with malice.

In response to Doe's complaint, Dwosh filed an anti-SLAPP motion on June 28, 2022. An anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion is designed to prevent lawsuits that aim to silence or intimidate individuals from exercising their free speech rights or right to petition. Dwosh argued that his actions were protected under this statute and that Doe could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claim.

During the hearing held on February 22, 2023, Judge Edward B. Moreton ruled in favor of Dwosh's anti-SLAPP motion. The court found that filing for a restraining order constituted protected activity and concluded that Doe could not meet her burden of showing she had a likelihood of success in proving malicious prosecution. The ruling cited California case law which generally does not support claims for malicious prosecution based solely on unsuccessful petitions for domestic violence restraining orders.

As part of his victory in the anti-SLAPP motion, Dwosh was awarded $5,915 in attorney fees as determined by the court on March 9, 2023. Despite multiple attempts by Doe to disqualify Judge Moreton citing bias and discrimination—claims stemming from unrelated prior interactions—the court dismissed these motions as unfounded.

Representing herself throughout the proceedings, Jane Doe faced significant legal challenges including numerous failed motions and appeals regarding various pre-judgment orders such as striking declarations and sealing documents. Ultimately, many of these appeals were dismissed due to procedural issues or lack of merit.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News