Slavin

Slavin v. Monet

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 20, 20203:19-cv-01786California2,872 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CRAIG S. SLAVIN, Case No.: 19cv1786 JM(MDD)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

v. REBECCA MONET and LAURENCE F.

HAINES,

15 Defendants. 16 Presently before the court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants Rebecca Monet (Monet) and Laurence F. Haines (Haines), (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc No. 5.) The motion has been briefed and the court finds it suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. Background On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Craig Slavin (Slavin) filed this “malicious prosecution” claim stemming from a civil action Monet and Zoracle, LLC filed against /// /// /// 28 Slavin, Franchise Central, LLC, Franchise Navigator and Franchise Architects in the Superior Court for San Diego County, California. (Doc. No. 1, “Compl.”) …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.