Malicious prosecution; Matthews v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MI; Initiation of criminal prosecution

The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that defendants initiated or procured the criminal prosecution, requiring dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim. Plaintiffs sued state regulatory officials after criminal charges against one plaintiff were dismissed at the preliminary exam for lack of probable cause. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants targeted that plaintiff for prosecution while similarly situated individuals were not charged. The trial court granted summary disposition. Applying Matthews, the court emphasized that a malicious prosecution plaintiff must show that the defendant “initiated a criminal prosecution” or “instigated the investigation or continued it,” and that the prosecution was based on false information. The court noted that defendants denied making any criminal referral, an agency director averred that no referral was made regarding plaintiff, and the investigating agent testified that the charging decision was made by the assistant attorney general. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the prosecutor lacked independence, explaining that parties “opposing a motion for summary disposition must present more than conjecture and speculation,” and that providing information during a regulatory investigation does not equate to initiating prosecution. The court further stated that “[u]nless the information furnished was known by the giver to be false and was the information on which the prosecutor acted, the private person has not procured the prosecution.” Because plaintiffs failed to identify any knowingly false information supplied by defendants or evidence undermining prosecutorial independence, summary disposition was proper. Affirmed.