Wins

After a decade of litigation with a commercial tenant, GMSR’s clients, a commercial property owner and its manager, prevailed.  They then sued the tenant and his counsel for malicious prosecution.

The tenant and his counsel moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute.  After the trial court denied the motion, they appealed, arguing that: (1) the trial court erroneously relied on the judge’s findings in the prior, underlying litigation; (2) the interim adverse judgment rule barred malicious prosecution claims as a matter of law; and (3) the evidence was otherwise insufficient to support malicious prosecution claims.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.  Agreeing with GMSR, it held that (1) the judge’s findings in the prior, underlying litigation could be used to show a probability of prevailing in the later, malicious prosecution action; (2) the interim adverse judgment rule didn’t bar the malicious prosecution claims; and (3) GMSR’s clients had enough evidence to pursue the claims against both the tenant and his counsel.

Click here to read the Court of Appeal opinion:  Simantob v. Akhtarzad (Oct. 1, 2024, B320753) 2024 WL 4353472 [Second District, Division Eight].