HOLDINGS: [1]-The applicable statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action against a law firm and an attorney was the two-year period for wrongful acts under Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1, not the one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice under Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, and the suit was timely; [2]-Although the trial court in the underlying trade secrets action denied summary judgment, the interim adverse judgment rule did not apply because the trial court also concluded that the underlying action had been brought in objective and subjective bad faith, with no legal or factual basis; [3]-A probability of prevailing was shown on the issue of lack of probable cause because the law firm had sought an obviously anti-competitive injunction in the underlying action based on speculation, and its anti-SLAPP motion under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, thus should have been denied.

Outcome

Orders reversed.

Appellant, the State of California, sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County (California), granting respondent's motion to set aside a count of an indictment charging him with violation of Cal. Penal Code § 2053, making felonious the willful holding corporate defense attorney out as a medical practitioner, under circumstances or conditions which cause or create risk of great bodily harm, severe physical or mental illness, or death.

Overview

An undercover investigator consulted respondent, claiming to suffer from certain maladies, and received diagnosis and treatment from respondent that would have, had he in fact been so afflicted, created a risk of great bodily harm or death. Respondent was charged with violation of Cal. Penal Code § 2053, which made it a felony to willfully hold oneself out as a medical practitioner under circumstances or conditions that caused or created risk of great bodily harm, severe physical or mental illness, or death. The trial court set aside the felony count, and appellant, the state, sought review. The court affirmed the judgment. It held that a violation of § 2053 required actual harm or the threat of harm to a particular victim.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment dismissing the count of the indictment charging respondent with a felony, holding that the statute applied only where there was an actual threat of serious bodily harm of illness cause by a defendant's treatment.