In California, the statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution claim is two years, set by Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. The clock does not start when the original lawsuit was filed against you. It starts on the date that case ends in your favor and becomes final. Pinpointing that date is where most timing fights happen, and a separate six-month deadline takes over if a government entity was behind the original case.
When the Clock Starts
You don’t have a malicious prosecution claim until the case against you ends in your favor, because favorable termination is one of the elements you have to prove. Until the underlying proceeding is resolved, the cause of action hasn’t accrued and the two-year period hasn’t begun.
Finality is the key word. If the losing side still has time to appeal, the termination isn’t final yet and the clock stays paused. If an appeal is actually filed, the limitations period remains frozen through the appellate process. Only when no further review is possible does the two-year countdown start to run.
That means the usable deadline is almost always later than the trial-court judgment date. If you measure from the wrong event, you’ll either file too early (and lose on favorable termination) or assume you have more time than you do.
What Counts as a Favorable Termination
Not every exit from the earlier case qualifies. The termination must reflect on the merits and suggest the claims against you lacked substance. A result that simply ends the case without saying anything about who was right won’t do.1Justia. CACI No. 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings
Outcomes that generally qualify:
- A verdict or judgment in your favor at trial.
- A dismissal because the claims couldn’t be supported by evidence.
- A voluntary dismissal by the original plaintiff, if the circumstances show it amounted to a concession that the claims couldn’t be maintained. A bare dismissal with no context isn’t automatically enough; courts look at why it happened.
Outcomes that do not qualify:
- Settlements and negotiated compromises, which don’t reflect on anyone’s innocence.
- Procedural dismissals for reasons like lack of jurisdiction, mootness, or the original statute of limitations running out. These say nothing about the merits.1Justia. CACI No. 1501 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings
One trap that catches people: favorable termination has to cover the entire prior action, not just a single claim within it. If the original plaintiff sued you on four theories and won on even one, the element fails for the whole case. If you prevailed on everything, you can build your malicious prosecution case around whichever specific claims lacked probable cause and were brought with malice.
Suing the Opposing Attorney: Still Two Years
For years, some California courts applied a one-year deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 when the malicious prosecution target was the other side’s attorney rather than the party. That split was closed in 2025. In Escamilla v. Vannucci, the California Supreme Court held that section 340.6 does not apply to claims brought by people who were never the attorney’s client, and that section 335.1’s two-year period governs malicious prosecution claims against all defendants, including attorneys. Earlier appellate decisions going the other way were expressly disapproved.
So whether your target is the party who sued you, their lawyer, or both, the deadline is the same two years from final favorable termination.
Six Months if a Government Entity Was Involved
If the original case was brought by a government employee acting in an official capacity, or a public agency was involved, the timeline compresses dramatically. Before you can sue, California’s Government Claims Act requires a formal written claim submitted to the public entity itself.
That administrative claim is due within six months of accrual, which for malicious prosecution means six months from the final favorable termination of the underlying case.2California Legislative Information. California Government Code 911.2 Miss that window and the case is usually over before it starts. Courts enforce the deadline strictly.
If the entity rejects your claim in writing, you then have six months from the date of that rejection notice to file suit in court. If the entity never responds, the claim is deemed rejected after a period of inactivity, and you have two years from the original accrual date to file.
When the Deadline Pauses
Certain conditions toll (temporarily freeze) the two-year period. If you were a minor or lacked legal capacity to make decisions when the claim accrued, time spent in that condition doesn’t count against the deadline. The clock starts once the disability ends.3California Legislative Information. California Code CCP 352
Important boundary: this tolling does not apply to claims against government entities. The Government Claims Act’s six-month administrative deadline runs regardless of the plaintiff’s age or capacity.
Why Meeting the Deadline Isn’t the Whole Timing Problem
Filing within two years gets you in the door. It doesn’t keep you there. California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, lets a defendant move early to strike claims that arise from protected petitioning activity, and filing or maintaining a lawsuit is petitioning activity. That makes almost every malicious prosecution case subject to an anti-SLAPP motion.4California Legislative Information. California Code CCP 425.16
The motion triggers a two-step test. The defendant first shows the claim arises from protected activity, which in this context is essentially automatic. The burden then shifts to you to show a probability of prevailing on the merits by presenting admissible evidence supporting each element of your claim, before any discovery.
The stakes are real. If the court grants the motion and strikes your case, you pay the defendant’s attorney fees and costs, which routinely run into the tens of thousands of dollars. If the court finds the motion itself was frivolous, fees can be awarded to you instead.4California Legislative Information. California Code CCP 425.16
The practical takeaway on timing: don’t use the full two years as breathing room. Use it to be sure the underlying termination is truly final, that it reflects on the merits of every claim in the prior case, and that you have evidence ready for each element on day one of your lawsuit. A filing that meets section 335.1’s deadline but can’t survive an anti-SLAPP motion is worse than no filing at all.