Musaelian v. Adams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 8/22/07 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR MARY MUSAELIAN, Plaintiff, v. A112906 WILLIAM L. ADAMS et al., Defendants and Respondents; (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV236208) JOHN G. WARNER, Objector and Appellant. THE COURT: The petition for rehearing filed by respondents on August 7, 2007, is denied. The opinion filed herein on July 25, 2007, is ordered modified as follows: 1. In footnote * on page 1 change parts I and II (B) to read parts I. and II.(B). 2. On page 17, in the unpublished portion of the opinion, delete the second sentence of the paragraph carrying over to page 18: Assuming for purposes of argument that plaintiff could not succeed in her claim unless she had prevailed in Reiter, we reject this conclusion. Substitute therefor, But an abuse of process claim unlike a cause of action for malicious prosecution does not include as an element that the plaintiff have prevailed in a prior action. (Compare Drum, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1019 and Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 884-885 with Marijanovic v. Gray, York & Duffy (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1270-1271.) In any event, plaintiff could reasonably argue that the ultimate outcome of her limited involvement in the Reiter case was favorable. 1 There is no change in the judgment. P. J. DATED: 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
