Defendant television agency appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and granted judgment for plaintiff partners in plaintiffs’ action for malicious prosecution of a breach of contract action brought against them by defendant.
Nakase Law Firm provides more information on how much would a settlement be for a bulging disc
Overview
Plaintiff partners developed a television show and offered it to defendant television agency for sponsorship. The parties entered into an agreement to sponsor plaintiffs’ program for 13 weeks with an option to renew. At the time defendant renewed the option, it changed a condition of the agreement, to which plaintiffs declined to agree. When plaintiffs contracted with another agency for sponsorship, defendant brought a breach of contract action against plaintiffs. A jury found in plaintiffs’ favor and plaintiffs then brought the action for malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs were awarded damages and defendant appealed the judgment and the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the court affirmed and held that although it was error to submit to the jury the question of whether defendant had reason to believe that the allegations of its breach of contract complaint were true, it was harmless error because the evidence established as a matter of law that there was no probable cause for the action. Also, because the jury could infer malice from want of probable cause, the court could not say as a matter of law that there was no malice.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff partners in their malicious prosecution action against defendant television agency because, although it was error for the trial court to have submitted the issue of defendant’s probable cause to a jury, it was harmless error given the evidence, and the court could not say that there was an absence of malice as a matter of law.
