HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE 5th Cause Of Action FROM COMPLAINT

FILED BY ZHENUS WAHIDI

* TENTATIVE RULING: *

The fifth cause of action in plaintiff’s Complaint asserts a claim for malicious prosecution, based on defendant allegedly having filed for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), which was denied at hearing. Defendant moves under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute) to strike that cause of action. The motion is unopposed, and it is granted.

In Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1571-74, the court held that as a matter of law, a malicious prosecution claim cannot be based on an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a civil harassment restraining order. The same logic applies at least as strongly to DVROs. Indeed, as the Siam court noted, all proceedings in family law are similarly exempt from malicious prosecution claims. Id. at 1571-72, discussing Bidna v. Rosen (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 27. A DVRO is classified as a form of family-law proceeding.