No photo
Posted almost 3 years ago.

in the space provided, it is difficult to paint a clear picture of the case. The theory of the malicious prosecution is that the Plaintiff attorney (who himself purchased the debt), filed with the court a pleading which he MAY have believed contained legitimate facts. However, when I answered the complaint and spoke with him, HE KNEW that the facts he alleged in the complaint were not backed up by even the evidence HE submitted. he was abusive, rude and aggressive on the phone. While being a jerk is not actionable, it plays to state of mind and conduct. While clearly going after a debt is not in any way illegal, going after it in a manner that is only aimed at simply harassing and brow beating the defendant into submission is..

Again the facts of the case when examined, can only lead you to the conclusion that while he had ever right to go after the debt, he SHOULD have amended his complaint to allege a different theory that was at least accurate. Which he did not. The only conclusion can be that he didn't care about the facts. When the judge hit him for a sanction for not showing up, then he bailed..

I just want him to be accountable for his actions. As I would be were I to be in the wrong; which in this case I was NOT..

Christine C McCall
Christine C McCall, Administrative Law Lawyer - Pasadena, CA
Posted almost 3 years ago.

Your theory is that the plaintiff is required to believe the defendant's representations about a contested matter after suit is filed to collect a debt. If that were the rule for legal actions for malicious prosecution, it would change the legal landscape beyond recognition. (And I would be so very very rich.) You won't get far with this effort, but have a good go to get it out of your system. Take precautions to make sure you don't inadvertently raise the stakes and get hit with the defense's legal fees. My guess is you'll be walking pro per here -- can't imagine an experienced attorney getting invested in this.