apply in a malicious prosecution action based on the dismissal of the underlying action in connection with a settlement. In the absence of controlling state law, a “federal court sitting in diversity must use its own best judgment in predicting how the state’s highest court would decide the case.” Takahashi v. Loomis Armored Car Serv., 625 F.2d 314, 316 (9th Cir.1980). “In so doing, a federal court may be aided by looking to well-reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions.” Id. It is a well-accepted exception to the general rule that a dismissal resulting from a settlement does not constitute a favorable termination for malicious prosecution purposes. See, e.g., Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology Int’l., 177 Ill.2d 267, 226 Ill.Dec. 604, 685 N.E.2d 1347, 1353 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Cox v. Williams, 233 Mich.App. 388, 593
recognizing a charge of common law grand larceny as the basis of an action for malicious prosecution holding that a dismissal of a defendant who did not agree to settlement is not a favorable termination if dismissal of that defendant was a condition of settlement holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists holding the same for malicious prosecution holding that if the dismissal was merely a formal means of securing a negotiated settlement it cannot serve as the basis for a malicious prosecution action