Skip to main content

California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Paiva v. Nichols, H031451

Order denying three anti-SLAPP motions to strike brought on behalf of defendants is reversed where: 1) the prior suit was unquestionably protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute; 2) there was probable cause to initiate and maintain the prior suit; and 3) plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing a probability that he would prevail in his malicious prosecution action.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 11/26/2008
  • Published 11/26/2008


  • DUFFY, J.


  • California Court of Appeal


  • For Appellees:
  • Richard R. Pedersen, Pedersen, Siehl & Brodies, San Jose, Mark G. Bonino, Cherie M. Sutherland, Hayes, Davis, Bonino, Ellingson, McLay & Scott, Redwood Shores, for Defendant and Appellant Nichols., Michael C. Douglass, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant McSweeney., Russell S. Roeca, Daniel W. Hager, Roeca Haas Hager, San Francisco, Bradley A. Bening, Bruce D. McLeod, Willoughby, Stuart & Bening, San Jose, for Defendant and Appellant Fabian., Brian J. O'Grady, Gazzera, O'Grady & Stevens, Mountain View, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Copied to clipboard