Hakakha
Hakakha v. Peregrine Financial & Securities Inc.
Opinion
Concurring Opinion
Rawlinson, J.
concurring.
I concur in the result.
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Faramarz Hakakha appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his di *588 versity action against Peregrine Financials & Securities, Inc. (PF & S), a securities brokerage firm. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and, after de novo review, see Smith v. Pacific Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.
Hakakha’s complaint alleged a claim of malicious prosecution 1 under California law based on allegations that PF & S brought an action against him in Illinois state court concerning a dispute that was subject to mandatory arbitration before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). Hakakha alleged that PF & S’ filing of and refusal to dismiss the Illinois court action was part of a malicious scheme devised to deprive Hakakha of his right to proceed pursuant to the arbitration agreement. Hakakha further alleged that the defendants knew that the action was brought without probable cause and that the “matter” terminated favorably to him. The Illinois court ultimately granted Hakakha’s motion to compel arbitration before the NASD.