Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1245 (D.C. 1986). In Brown, the D.C. Court of Appeals adopted the approach of the California courts to malicious prosecution claims. Harris, 696 F.Supp.2d at 134. Accordingly, “ ‘[i]f [the termination] is of such a nature as to indicate the innocence of the accused, it is a favorable termination sufficient to satisfy the requirement. If, however, the dismissal is on technical grounds, for procedural reasons, ... it does not constitute favorable termination.’ ” Id. (quoting Brown, 503 A.2d at 1245). “[Dismissal for failure to prosecute has been held to be a favorable termination where the facts of the case indicate that such a disposition reflects on the innocence of the defendant in the underlying suit.” Brown, 503 A.2d at upp.3d 132, 145 (D.D.C. 2015) (<HOLDING>); Harris, 696 F.Supp.2d at 134 (finding that
holding that mere recitation of bare elements of a cause of action is insufficient to survive dismissal holding that a conclusory boilerplate assertion of a municipal policy or custom was insufficient to survive motion to dismiss holding that the bare assertion that a dismissal without prejudice was favorable to the plaintiff was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss holding that a review committee of the kansas board for discipline of attorneys had the authority to dismiss a complaint against an attorney with or without prejudice and when dismissal was ordered without specifying the nature of the dismissal the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of later proceedings on the same matter holding that a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to the pslra