Does the denial of former employees' motion for summary judgment in an action for misappropriation of trade secrets conclusively establish probable cause to bring the action and thus preclude the employees' subsequent malicious prosecution action, even if the trial court in the prior action later found that it had been brought in bad faith? Is the former employees' malicious prosecution action against the employer's former attorneys barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 304.6??
Cite as
2015 DJDAR 11410Published
Oct. 16, 2015Filing Date
Oct. 14, 2015Summary
This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the denial of former employees' motion for summary judgment in an action for misappropriation of trade secrets conclusively establish that their former employer had probable cause to bring the action and thus preclude the employees' subsequent action for malicious prosecution, even if the trial court in the prior action later found that it had been brought in bad faith? (2) Is the former employees' malicious prosecution action against the employer's former attorneys barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 304.6?
—
Parrish
v.
Latham & Watkins
No. S228277
C.A. 2nd, Div. 3, No. B244841
California Supreme Court
Filed Oct. 14, 2015
Petition for review granted.
Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice
Werdegar, Associate Justice
Chin, Associate Justice
Corrigan, Associate Justice
Liu, Associate Justice
Cuéllar, Associate Justice
Kruger, Associate Justice
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424