not a step ‘beyond the purview of legal action for defamation to seek an end to the defendant’s alleged defamatory statements— whether the defamation defendant regards those statements as truthful or not”); see also Francisconi, 2008 WL 1971336 at *3 (finding defendant’s claim that plaintiff served process for the improper purpose of forcing vacation of the premises insufficient when “unlawful detainer proceedings are, by design, intended to ‘force vacation of the premises’ ” (citation omitted)). Furthermore, Houlahan has failed to make a colorable showing that defendants committed a willful “act in the use of the process other than such as would be proper in the regular prosecution of the charge” Hall, 147 A.2d at 868 (emphasis in original); see also Anderson Dev. Co., 116 P.3d at 341 (<HOLDING>). The only act beyond the mere issuance of
holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate  an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute holding regular use of process cannot constitute abuse of process holding that judicial privilege does not apply to the appellants claims for wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process holding that a claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to an administrative claim