Case Summary

4995 The plaintiff sued attorneys who represented a client in an underlying slander suit against the plaintiff, but the litigation privilege foreclosed all of the plaintiff's causes of action except for her malicious prosecution claim. The trial court properly granted the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to strike the malicious prosecution claim. Although the plaintiff presented evidence that the defendants satisfied most of the elements of malicious prosecution, she failed to present evidence that the defendants acted with malice.

DANIELS v ROBBINS (I Didn't Slander You) 182 CA4 204 [See CCP § 425.16; Ross v Kish 145 CA4 188; Venture v LMI Ins. Co. 66 CA4 478]