Pasternack

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Lawrence Pasternack appeals from an order granting the special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) his present complaint for malicious prosecution against an attorney and his law firm, defendants and respondents Thomas B. McCullough, Jr., and Thomas B. McCullough, Jr., A Professional Corporation (the McCullough defendants). We affirm.

The parties agree the complaint is based on protected speech and petitioning activity. (§ 425.16, subd. (e); Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 734-735 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 636 , 74 P.3d 737 ] [litigation is protected speech and petitioning activity].) They dispute whether the underlying action was terminated in favor of Pasternack (Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal.3d 841, 845 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 179 , 479 P.2d 379 ] [“It is hornbook law that the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action must plead and prove that the prior judicial proceeding of which he complains terminated in his favor.”]), and thus whether Pasternack met his burden of stating and substantiating the favorable termination element of his malicious prosecution claim.

The trial court concluded, and we agree,…