abuse of process

[insearchofjustice123]

Once again: did you read the judicial opinion to which I provided a link?

Yes. I read it. It does not provide an answer as to whether I have to resolve the original suit BEFORE I can file under Dragonetti on the counterclaims.

 

[insearchofjustice123]

As suggested numerous times, hire an attorney.

Don't open a new thread, keep your discussion in this thread, thank you.

This is the ONLY admonishment you will receive.

I appreciate that that is the ONLY admonishment, as the website purports to help. There would be no legitimate reason to host a website simply to make fun of the people who come with discussion questions

 

[insearchofjustice123]

Have I stumped every one?

 

[zddoodah]

Have I stumped every one?

According to the time stamps, your four most recent posts were made between 10:49-11:30 p.m. last night. I don't know if that's PA time or Pacific time, but either way, I was sleeping during that time period, and it's not like someone is monitoring these boards 24/7.

Yes. I read it. It does not provide an answer as to whether I have to resolve the original suit BEFORE I can file under Dragonetti on the counterclaims.

You can't have read it very carefully then. The following appears at the very beginning of the legal analysis -- it's the first sentence in the first paragraph of section I ("Dragonetti Act Claim"): "Unlike the common law abuse of process tort, a Dragonetti Act claim requires that '[the] proceedings have terminated in favor of the persons against whom they are brought.'"

The opinion then immediately cites a case called U.S. ex rel. Magid v. Widerman, and describes that case has having held "that because the underlying proceedings [had] not yet been concluded, the malicious use of process claim [a Dragonetti Act claim] – but not the abuse of process claim – was unripe."

The next sentence explains that, in order "to establish a Dragonetti Act claim, the plaintiff must "show[] a termination of the underlying litigation."

A couple paragraphs later, at the bottom of page 3, the court states, again, that "t is well
settled law that for claims under the Dragonetti Act the underlying litigation must be final."

I have a hard time believing you could have missed those numerous, clear statements if you had actually read the opinion.

 

[insearchofjustice123]

According to the time stamps, your four most recent posts were made between 10:49-11:30 p.m. last night. I don't know if that's PA time or Pacific time, but either way, I was sleeping during that time period, and it's not like someone is monitoring these boards 24/7.



You can't have read it very carefully then. The following appears at the very beginning of the legal analysis -- it's the first sentence in the first paragraph of section I ("Dragonetti Act Claim"): "Unlike the common law abuse of process tort, a Dragonetti Act claim requires that '[the] proceedings have terminated in favor of the persons against whom they are brought.'"

The opinion then immediately cites a case called U.S. ex rel. Magid v. Widerman, and describes that case has having held "that because the underlying proceedings [had] not yet been concluded, the malicious use of process claim [a Dragonetti Act claim] – but not the abuse of process claim – was unripe."

The next sentence explains that, in order "to establish a Dragonetti Act claim, the plaintiff must "show[] a termination of the underlying litigation."

A couple paragraphs later, at the bottom of page 3, the court states, again, that "t is well
settled law that for claims under the Dragonetti Act the underlying litigation must be final."

I have a hard time believing you could have missed those numerous, clear statements if you had actually read the opinion.

Thanks for getting back to me. I was questioning whether the "underlying process" was referring to the counterclaims that had been withdrawn.