In Re Bio-Response, Inc., Debtor. Samuel Rose, Dr. v. Bio-Response, Inc.

21 F.3d 1111 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. In re BIO-RESPONSE, INC., Debtor. Samuel ROSE, Dr., Appellant, v. BIO-RESPONSE, INC., Appellee. No. 93-15658. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 7, 1994. Decided March 23, 1994. 1 Before: ALARCON and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges, and WILSON, District Judge. * 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Dr. Samuel Rose appeals from the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's judgment in favor of Bio-Response, Inc. in his malicious prosecution claim against Bio-Response. We affirm the judgment because we conclude that Dr. Rose has failed to demonstrate that Bio-Response's dismissal of its state court trade secret misappropriation action was a favorable termination on the merits. I. 4 On January 2, 1987, Bio-Response sued Dr. Rose in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, interference with business…