4
The California Supreme Court recently articulated the basis for application of the
interim adverse judgment rule in Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (2017) 3 Cal.5th 767
(Parrish). The court explained that a plaintiff seeking to establish liability for the tort of
malicious prosecution “must demonstrate, among other things, that the defendant
previously caused the commencement or continuation of an action against the plaintiff
that was not supported by probable cause.” (Id. at p. 771.) “[I]f an action succeeds after
a hearing on the merits, that success ordinarily establishes the existence of probable cause
(and thus forecloses a later malicious prosecution suit), even if the result is overturned on
appeal or by later ruling of the trial court. [Citation.] This principle has come to be
known as the interim adverse judgment rule.” (Ibid.) Appellants rely on language in
Parrish to support their claim that the interim adverse judgment rule should not have
applied here, because according to appellants, the initial decision in Kruger’s favor in the
unlawful detainer action hinged on false testimony about the returned rental payment.