Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, Inc.
Filed February 8, 2008
Cite as 05-56045

Summary Judgment on Malicious Prosecution Affirmed With Modification

Cynthia DeLores Tucker was civil right activist. As she became alarmed with the increasing popularity of “gangsta rap” music, she enlisted the support of several entertainers to limit the sale and distribution of gangsta rap especially to young people.

This brought about a case she filed together with her husband William Tucker against thirteen individuals including Death Row and Interscope Records both recording company. Said complaint contained three causes of action: intentional infliction of emotional distress; slander and invasion of privacy.

When Death Row and Interscope successfully moved for a dismissal without prejudiced, Spouses Tucker filed a case for malicious prosecution invoking diversity jurisdiction against said two entities and their lawyers which were denominated as Tucker v. Interscope, Tucker v. Kenner and Death Row v. Tucker.

William also sought damages for loss of consortium as a derivative claim.

The district court granted summary judgment in both cases in holding that Spouses Tuckers’ case failed to show malice on the part of said defendants which is a necessary element of a malicious prosecution claim.

It also dismissed the consortium claim filed by William ruling that he failed to carry his burden of production and he has no viable claim for malicious prosecution.

On appeal, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in Tucker v. Interscope, while affirmed in part and reverse in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Tucker v. Kenner. The appellate court remanded for trial the Tuckers’ malicious prosecution claim against Kenner to the extent that it is based on the abuse of process claim that he included in Death Row v. Tucker.

Said pronouncements were based on the following grounds:

• Spouses Tucker failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the motions for summary judgment on the issue of malice.


• In the case of Tucker v. Kenner, it is for the jury to determine whether the lawsuits against Tucker were filed without probable cause and with knowledge of the lack of it and therefore with malice.

In conclusion, the appellate court:

• affirmed the summary judgment in Tucker v. Interscope;


• affirmed in part and reverse in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Tucker v. Kenner; and


• remanded for trial the Tuckers’ malicious prosecution claim against Kenner.