California Court of Appeal

In an action for malicious prosecution based on an unlawful detainer allegedly filed against plaintiff by the previous owner of his apartment complex and by the previous property manager, brought against the alleged current owners and current property manager, who plaintiff claims are liable as successors in interest, the trial court's rulings granting defendants' SLAPP motions are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim is "[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech," Code Civ. Proc., section 425.16(b)(1), even though defendants did not prosecute the underlying unlawful detainer; and 2) plaintiff failed to show that defendants could be held liable on a successor-in-interest theory.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/14/2012
• Published 06/14/2012

Judges

• RICHLI

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel