Roosen v. Farrell (Aug. 27, 2010, B209873) 2010 WL 3371510 [nonpublished opinion]

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a malicious prosecution action against GMSR’s attorney client under the anti-SLAPP statute. The malicious prosecution action was based on cross-claims that the attorney had filed against the plaintiff in a complex network of probate proceedings. The plaintiff focused on the fact that the attorney’s client later claimed that he had not authorized the filing of the cross-claims. The Court of Appeal held that the attorney’s filing of the cross-claims, even without express client consent, was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, that it was not objectively unreasonable for the attorney to file the cross-claims based on the conflicting facts then known to him, and that the plaintiff had failed to make any showing of malice. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not show a probability of success on the merits of the malicious prosecution action.

Case Briefs