Kay

facts: “The vast quantity of prior cases between [Pick] and [Kay]—some cases going back more than two decades—are more than sufficient evidence that [Pick] could be acting because of actual malice and/or malice by instituting proceedings for another improper purpose. Indeed, [Pick] begins his [anti- SLAPP] Motion by calling this action a ‘war for vindication based on true belief and intent of being wronged’ and cites the Hatfields and McCoys—a well- known reference to two Appalachian families who fought and killed each other for decades.”

There is no change in the judgment.

____________________________________________________________ GRIMES, Acting P. J. WILEY, J. VIRAMONTES, J.

2 Filed 12/6/24 Kay v. Pick CA2/8 (unmodified opinion)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION…