Tracey Hampton-Stein v. Aviation Finance Group, LLC

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Tracy Hampton-Stein (“Hampton”) appeals from a district court order granting defendants-appellees’ anti-SLAPP motion and dismissing Hampton’s suit for malicious prosecution. Hampton argues that the district judge should have denied the anti-SLAPP motion (1) because Hampton’s malicious prosecution suit had the minimal merit necessary to survive, and (2) because the defendants failed to comply with certain procedural rules.

We review de novo the district court order granting the defendants’ antiSLAPP motion. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir.2003). Upon such review, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion on its merits.

To survive an anti-SLAPP motion, Hampton’s complaint must be “legally sufficient and supported by a prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted [by her] is credited.” Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683, 713-14 , 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775 , 151 P.3d 1185 (2007) (quotations and citations omitted). Hampton’s cause of action for malicious prosecution requires that, among other things, the prior action about which she complains —…