Khartri

background of the disputes between Roger, Peter, and Vidya as follows: “A. Khatri I “In 2003, Peter, individually and on behalf of Vidya, sued Roger, seeking to rescind agreements regarding family income properties and to dissolve a family partnership established in the 1980’s, which owned six income properties.[5] Vidya, separately represented by attorney Albert Martin, cross-complained against her sons, seeking to rescind certain agreements that divided the properties and provided her with a $1,500-per- month income. The trial court entered an interlocutory judgment finding Roger had a 50-percent ownership interest and a 50-percent income interest in the partnership, Vidya had a 50-percent ownership interest and a 25- percent income interest, and Peter had a 25-percent income interest. The

4 The trial court granted Roger’s motion in part, as to Kokila only, on

the basis that she was not named in her individual capacity in the underlying will contest (Khatri III) and therefore could not assert a claim for malicious prosecution. Although the attorney defendants made the same arguments regarding Kokila, the trial court’s order on the attorney defendants’ motion to strike denied…