Barak

Barak v. the Quisenberry Law Firm

Good Law
135 Cal. App. 4th 654·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 14·2006 Daily Journal DAR 392·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 688·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 314
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 2006B181029California2,056 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

This appeal results from the grant of a special motion to strike appellant’s complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. We find no error and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant Frederick Barak filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against respondents Michael Larivee, the Quisenberry Law Firm, and certain members of the Quisenberry Law Firm. The Quisenberry Law Firm had represented Larivee in a previous action filed against appellant.

On July 16, 2004, the Quisenberry Law Firm filed and served a special motion to strike appellant’s complaint pursuant to section 425.16. It contended that the malicious prosecution action lacked merit and appellant would not be able to demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on his claim. Hearing on the motion was noticed for August 17, 2004. Larivee filed a document joining in the motion. On its own motion, on July 20, 2004, the court continued the hearing on the Quisenberry Law Firm’s motion to September 1, 2004. Notices of the continuance of the motion and the joinder were served by the court on counsel for Larivee and the Quisenberry Law Firm with directions to serve notice of the continuance on all…

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.