Ostly

I.

INTRODUCTION

Following a jury verdict in his favor in the underlying sexual harassment and wrongful termination litigation brought by his former employee, Allison Moreno (Moreno), Thomas Ostly (Ostly) filed a malicious prosecution action against the

1 attorneys who represented Moreno in that litigation (respondent attorneys1). He also sued Anne Tamika Omura (Omura), an attorney who consulted with and advised both Moreno and respondent attorneys in connection with that litigation, but never appeared as an attorney of record. The respondent attorneys and Omura brought special motions to strike Ostly’s complaint for malicious prosecution pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.2 The trial court granted both anti-SLAPP motions and awarded attorney fees. In these consolidated appeals, Ostly contends the special motions to strike were improperly granted and the attorney fees awards must be reversed. Finding no error, we will affirm.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The underlying case arose from a two-month sexual relationship between Ostly and Moreno. At the time, Ostly was a partner with Ostly, Murphy, Vu (OMV), where Moreno worked as his…