Daniels

Daniels v. Robbins

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683·182 Cal. App. 4th 204·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 223
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 2010G039984California909 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

Plaintiff Wilhelmina Daniels appeals an order granting a Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP) motion. Wilhelmina alleges various defendants committed the torts of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress by filing and pursuing claims against her in a prior lawsuit.

The prior lawsuit was dismissed following the trial court’s grant of terminating sanctions against James T. Young, the plaintiff in the prior lawsuit. The law firm Quinlivan Wexler LLP, Attorney Patrick C. Quinlivan, and Attorney Jack H. Robbins (collectively, the Quinlivan Attorneys) represented Young in the underlying action. Young and the Quinlivan Attorneys are defendants in this action. The court granted the Quinlivan Attorneys’ anti-SLAPP motion and they are respondents to this appeal; Young is not a party to this appeal.

We affirm the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion because Wilhelmina failed to make the required showing she would probably prevail on her claims. With respect to the malicious prosecution cause of action, we affirm on the ground Wilhelmina failed to make a prima facie case of malice against the Quinlivan…

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.