Four: Filing a False Police Report — Against All Defendants Plaintiff alleges that on five dates between November 1, 2000, and February 14, 2001, defendants filed or caused to be filed false police reports accusing plaintiff of committing criminal acts. (FAC at 46). Plaintiffs claim is thus predicated on defendants’ communications, albeit allegedly false in nature, with the police regarding plaintiffs purported criminal activities. Such state law claim must be dismissed because, under California law, reports to police of suspected criminal activities— even false reports made with malice — are absolutely privileged and may not serve as predicates for tort claims, except the tort of malicious prosecution. See Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland, Security, 538 F.3d 1250, 1258 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hagberg v. California Federal Bank
holding that the state police is a state agency recognizing that defendants telephone call to san francisco police was privileged under state law and could not be the basis for tort liability recognizing a state law tort claim for negligence arising under a duty to provide a safe work environment holding admissible testimony of the victims daughter regarding a telephone call from the defendant to the victim hours before the victims death and the victims emotions following the telephone call where defendant claimed accident holding that a state statute that affects the governments ultimate liability is to be applied as substantive state law under the ftca