Xcentric Ventures v. Lisa Borodkin

Good Law
798 F.3d 1201·2015 WL 5010674
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 25, 201513-15544, 13-16271California1,023 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras’ Request for Reconsideration of Order Denying Request for Publication is GRANTED. The Memorandum disposition filed June 15, 2015, is redesignated as a per curiam opinion.

Lisa Borodkin’s Request for Judicial Notice in connection with the request for reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT.

OPINION

Xcentric Ventures appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants Mobrez and Llaneras and Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of defendant Borodkin in Xcentric’s malicious prosecution action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. We agree with the district court that Xcentric cannot prove an element of its malicious prosecution claims, that the underlying claims were brought or continued without factual or legal probable cause. We also deny Borodkin’s motion for sanctions.

Xcentric claims that the underlying claims lacked factual probable cause because defendants Mobrez and Llaneras lied about phone conversations to support their underlying extortion claim. Factual probable cause is lacking if the litigant “relies upon facts which he has no reasonable cause to believe…

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.