This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Malicious Prosecution
Abuse of Process

Rick Gifford v. Patrick Holmes, individually and dba Pat Holmes Painting and Sandblasting

Published: Dec. 10, 2011 | Result Date: Jun. 20, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: S-1500-CV-269592 Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

Kern Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Scott A. Galland


Defendant

Joel T. Andreesen
(Rodriguez & Associates)


Facts

Rick Gifford was a mechanic supervisor for Rain For Rent. Patrick Holmes, a painting vendor, was allegedly approached by Gifford and his coworker Larry Hall, about participating in a kickback scheme. Holmes declined and immediately thereafter, Gifford terminated Holmes' painting work and sent the work out to another vendor. Approximately two months later, Holmes was again approached by Hall about the alleged scheme. Holmes advised Gifford's supervisor about the scheme. Gifford was thereafter terminated. Rain for Rent reported him and he was subsequently charged with felonies and misdemeanor counts.

Gifford sued Holmes individually and d/b/a Pat Holmes Painting and Sandblasting for malicious prosecution, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The matter proceeded to a bench trial.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Holmes had no reasonable cause when he accused him of a criminal scheme. Plaintiff further contended that Holmes had been losing money and saw him as the cause and that was the reason he fabricated the whole story.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that Gifford did in fact attempt to involve him in a kickback scheme. He further contended that plaintiff failed to meet the elements of his claims, since plaintiff's employer was the one who went to the legal authorities, not defendant.

Damages

Gifford sought recovery for past earnings of approximately $25,000 per year since his July 2006 termination; future lost earnings; criminal defense costs of between $10,000 ad $20,000; an unspecified amount for emotional distress; and an unspecified amount for punitive damages.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed he suffered from embarrassment from being arrested and led away in handcuffs in front of his coworkers, as well as anxiety from facing imprisonment and financial loss.

Result

The court found for the defendant.


#88774

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390