Hill

MEMORANDUM

Don and Dena Hill (“the Hills”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their Fourth Amendment and state law claims and summary judgment in favor of the City of El Segundo (“the City”) on their First Amendment claims. 3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm the district court for the reasons set forth below.

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Hills’ Fourth Amendment claim against the City for malicious prosecution. Dismissal of a criminal complaint “in the interests of justice” is not a favorable termination for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim. See People v. *257 Matthews, 7 Cal.App.4th 1052 , 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 349 (Cal.Ct.App.1992).

The Hills’ state law tort claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Hills’ complaint does not identify an economically gainful relationship between the Hills and a third party—presumably a hypothetical buyer for their property. See Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58, 70 (Cal.1985) (affirming lower court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff “plead no…