## Facts

- Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a nonprofit organization, alleged that Church of Scientology entities and their attorneys agreed to use litigation to force CAN into bankruptcy and disbandment.
- CAN alleged that, between January 1991 and June 1992, defendants filed 21 lawsuits against CAN in jurisdictions across the United States as part of a coordinated campaign.
- CAN alleged the suits were filed without probable cause and with malice, intended to harass, intimidate, and financially destroy CAN by imposing legal-defense costs and increasing liability-insurance expenses.
- CAN alleged the underlying suits ended through summary judgment for CAN, voluntary dismissals, and involuntary dismissals, which CAN characterized as terminations in its favor.
- CAN sued for civil conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution, seeking damages from the asserted litigation campaign.

## Issues

1. Whether CAN sufficiently pleaded that the underlying lawsuits terminated in CAN’s favor for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim.
2. Whether Illinois requires a malicious prosecution plaintiff to plead “special injury,” and if so, whether CAN’s alleged harms were sufficient.
3. Whether allowing CAN’s claim to proceed would violate defendants’ First Amendment right to petition the courts.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate and trial court judgments dismissing the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held CAN adequately pleaded favorable termination at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- The court abrogated Illinois’ special-injury requirement for malicious prosecution actions.
- The court rejected the argument that the First Amendment barred the claim, reasoning that sham litigation is not protected petitioning activity.
- Because the underlying malicious prosecution theory was adequately pleaded, the conspiracy allegations could proceed.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true and reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiff’s favor.
- “Favorable termination” does not require a final adjudication after trial; dismissals and summary dispositions may qualify if the termination is indicative of the plaintiff’s nonliability, and whether a particular termination is favorable can depend on context.
- Illinois no longer requires proof of “special injury” (harm beyond ordinary litigation burdens such as arrest or seizure of property) as an element of malicious prosecution; the traditional elements and proof of actual damages supply the limiting principles.
- The First Amendment right to petition does not immunize sham litigation; a malicious prosecution claim aimed at baseless suits brought with malice may proceed without unconstitutional burden on petitioning rights.
- A civil conspiracy claim may be maintained where the complaint adequately pleads the underlying tort and an agreement and participation by multiple actors.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court permitted CAN’s action to go forward by holding that CAN’s pleaded dispositions of the underlying suits could constitute favorable terminations and by eliminating the special-injury requirement for malicious prosecution in Illinois, leaving the merits of CAN’s allegations for further proceedings on remand.


Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology Int’l, Inc., 177 Ill. 2d 267, 685 N.E.2d 1347 (Ill. 1997)