Mani Subramanian v. Qad, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Appellant appeals pro se the district court’s judgment and orders striking his cause of action for malicious prosecution, dismissing his cause of action for unfair competition, dismissing the remainder of his action for failure to prosecute, and related orders. We affirm.
1. Malicious Prosecution Cause of Action
The district court granted appellees’ motion to strike appellant’s cause of action for malicious prosecution under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, the California anti-SLAPP law. See Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow, 199 Cal.App.4th 676 , 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 910 , 912 n. 1 (2011). We review the grant of a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP law de novo. See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA 317 F.3d 1097 , 1102 & 1109 (9th Cir.2003).
A motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP law is appropriate if the cause of action arises from the defendants’ protected activity and the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the challenged cause of action. Vess, 317 F.3d at 1110 ; Chitsazzadeh, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d at 913-14 ; Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 , 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 507 , 52 P.3d 685, 694 (2002).