Opinion
Page 481a
154 Cal.App.4th 481a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ MARY MUSAELIAN, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM L. ADAMS et al., Defendants and Respondents JOHN G. WARNER, Objector and Appellant. A112906 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division August 22, 2007Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV236208
THE COURTThe opinion filed herein on July 25, 2007, (153 Cal.App.4th 882; ___Cal.Rptr.3d ____) is ordered modified as follows:
1. In footnote * on page 1 [153 Cal.App.4th 882, advance report, footnote *] change “parts I and II (B)” to read “parts I. and II.(B).”
2. On page 17, [153 Cal.App.4th 890, advance report, unpublished portion], in the unpublished portion of the opinion, delete the second sentence of the paragraph carrying over to page 18: “Assuming for purposes of argument that plaintiff could not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 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 151] with Marijanovic v. Gray, York & Duffy (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1270-1271 [40 Cal.Rptr.3d 867].) In any event, plaintiff could reasonably argue that the ultimate outcome of her limited involvement in the Reiter case was favorable.”
There is no change in the judgment.