Defendants Bluegill Construction, Inc., Aman Chowdhry, Law Offices of David D. Moriel, APLC, and David D. Moriel’s demurrer to plaintiff Model Builders, Inc.’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Malicious Prosecution Pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16 is granted.
Defendants met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s sole cause of action for malicious prosecution arose from an act in furtherance of the defendants’ right of petition or free speech. (“[E]very Court of Appeal that has addressed the question has concluded that malicious prosecution causes of action fall within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute.”)
Plaintiff did not meet its burden of showing a probability of prevailing on plaintiff’s sole cause of action for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff submitted no evidence in opposition to defendants’ special motion to strike. Plaintiff’s unverified pleadings do not support a finding that plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on the merits.
Defendants t
Hearing Date
July 01, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendants Bluegill Construction, Inc., Aman Chowdhry, Law Offices of David D. Moriel, APLC, and David D. Moriel’s demurrer to plaintiff Model Builders, Inc.’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Malicious Prosecution Pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16 is granted.
Defendants met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s sole cause of action for malicious prosecution arose from an act in furtherance of the defendants’ right of petition or free speech. (“[E]very Court of Appeal that has addressed the question has concluded that malicious prosecution causes of action fall within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute.”)
Plaintiff did not meet its burden of showing a probability of prevailing on plaintiff’s sole cause of action for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff submitted no evidence in opposition to defendants’ special motion to strike. Plaintiff’s unverified pleadings do not support a finding that plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on the merits.
Defendants t