California Law Bars New York Malicious Prosecution Claim

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department affirmed the dismissal of a malicious prosecution claim

We also affirm dismissal of the action against Baker Hostetler pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). The motion court properly held that under New York’s choice of law rules, malicious prosecution claims are governed by the law of the state where the underlying proceeding took place (Caldwell v Gutman, Mintz, Baker Sonnenfeldt, P.C., 701 F Supp 2d 340, 355 [ED NY 2010]; Seghers v Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 2007 WL 1404434, *8 n 11 [SD NY 2007]; Tripodi v Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers’ Intl Assn, AFL-CIO, 120 F Supp 2d 318, 321 [SD NY 2000]). Here, the arbitration that gives rise to plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim was held in San Diego, California. Therefore, the court properly applied California law, which bars plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim because the claim arises from a contractually agreed upon arbitration (see e.g. Brennan v Tremco, Inc., 25 Cal 4th 310, 314, 20 P3d 1086, 1088 [2001]).

(Mike Frisch)