consented to, or participated in the settlement of the underlying action. See id. The court concluded that Young had met the favorable termination requirement because he had not consented to the settlement that led to dismissal with prejudice of the underlying action against him. See id. Deer Creek urges this court not to follow Oklahoma but instead to apply California’s approach on this issue. Under California law, if an underlying action is dismissed against a nonconsenting defendant because it was a necessary condition of settlement with the other defendants in the underlying litigation, the dismissal with prejudice does not reflect on the substantive merits of the case and is therefore not a favorable termination for malicious prosecution purposes. See Haight, 244 Cal.Rptr. at 490 (<HOLDING>). The California courts have reasoned that the
holding that plaintiffs dismissal of personal injury action and subsequent dismissal of declaratory judgment action concerning extent of tortfeasors insurance coverage did not trigger double dismissal rule 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 a dismissal in the interest of justice can be a favorable termination under certain circumstances holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt