Pennsylvania Superior Court rejects piecemeal approach to claims for wrongful use of civil proceedings.

On December 29, 2009, the plaintiff Vinny Clausi, a Northumberland County Commissioner, made comments during a public meeting concerning the presence of pornography on computers located in the Sheriff’s office. Shortly after the meeting, defendants Boris and Jones, both Sheriff’s office employees, were terminated. Through defendant Mr. Stuck as their counsel, Messrs. Boris and Jones, among other Sheriff’s office employees, brought a defamation action against Mr. Clausi. Messrs. Boris and Jones later filed an amended complaint, which alleged federal civil rights claims, wrongful termination and claims under the Whistleblower Act, but which did not renew their original claim for defamation. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Clausi brought claims for abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings against Messrs. Boris and Jones, and against Mr. Stuck as their counsel. Mr. Clausi’s claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings was dismissed following preliminary objections, and after extensive discovery, his claim for abuse of process was dismissed on summary judgment. Mr. Clausi appealed both orders and, with respect to his claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings, argued that because Messrs. Boris and Jones “abandoned” their defamation claims by not including these claims in their amended complaint, such abandonment constituted termination “in favor of” Mr. Clausi for purposes of articulating a claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8351(a). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that, generally, when evaluating “favorable termination” in the context of a wrongful use claim, whether abandonment of a claim constitutes “favorable determination” depends upon the circumstances of such abandonment. The Superior Court noted that, although Messrs. Boris and Jones did remove one claim from their original pleading, they nevertheless added six additional claims, and the action was still pending at the time Mr. Clausi commenced his Dragonetti claim. Thus, because the overall action remained pending, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court committed no error by concluding that Mr. Clausi’s cause of action under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8351(a) had yet to accrue. This matter was handled at the trial court level by Sharon M. O’Donnell and at the appellate level by Lauren M. Burnette, both of our Harrisburg office.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter 2013