Siam

Siam v. Kizilbash

Good Law
130 Cal. App. 4th 1563·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1096·2005 Daily Journal DAR 8499·31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 368·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6233
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 15, 2005H027436California7,351 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

Defendant Murtz Kizilbash accused plaintiff Hab Siam of abusing defendant’s two young sons. Defendant reported plaintiff’s alleged abuse to law enforcement, school officials, and others. He also filed a civil harassment petition against plaintiff. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 527.6.) Plaintiff denied the allegations and sued defendant for defamation, emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and statutory violations. Defendant filed a special motion to strike. (§ 425.16.) The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals from that order. (§ 904.1, subd. (a)(13).)

On appeal defendant contends, among other things, that plaintiff cannot prevail on his claims because defendant’s statements are subject to the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47 subd. (b) (Civil Code section 47(b)) and, for policy reasons, a civil harassment petition should not be a permissible basis for a malicious prosecution claim.

We conclude that pursuant to the policy enunciated in Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 765 P.2d 498 ] (Sheldon Appel), a cause of action for malicious prosecution may not be based upon an unsuccessful civil harassment petition. (§…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.