C.A. 2nd;
B270513

The Second Appellate District affirmed a trial court judgment and order. In the published portion of its opinion, the court held that the denial of a defense motion for directed verdict precluded a later claim of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff, despite the prior court's ultimate entry of judgment in favor of the defendants.

Gingko Rose Ltd. acquired a house occupied by six tenants. It filed unlawful detainer actions against each of them. The cases against tenants Wayne Hart and Carlos Rodriguez proceeded to a bench trial first. After Gingko Rose rested its case-in-chief, Hart and Rodriguez moved for a directed verdict, arguing (1) the house was not properly registered with the rent-control authorities, (2) Gingko Rose was trying to collect rent for periods when the house was not registered, (3) the notices preceding the lawsuits did not spell out the alleged breaches of the rental agreement, and (4) the dilapidated condition of the house vitiated any duty to pay rent. The trial court denied the motion in part, and took the remainder of the motion under submission. After Hart and Rodriguez put on their case, the court denied the remainder. After receiving written closing arguments, the court ruled in favor of Hart and Rodriguez. Gingko Rose dismissed the unlawful detainer lawsuits still pending against the other four tenants. All six tenants then sued Gingko Rose and its principals for malicious prosecution of the unlawful detainer actions.