Legal Opinion

Mendoza v. Wichmann

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 3, 2011No. C059259PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

The trial court denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s malicious prosecution complaint as a SLAPP, ruling plaintiff had introduced sufficient evidence of her likelihood of succeeding on the merits.1

We reverse. We find on the undisputed facts that defendants had probable cause to bring the underlying action, and thus plaintiff cannot establish an element of her malicious prosecution claim. We direct the trial court to enter a new order granting defendants’ motion and dismissing the malicious prosecution complaint.

INTRODUCTION2

Defendant Jeffrey Wichmann was a…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  3. In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Roger Cleveland Golf Co. v. Krane & Smith, APCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. JKC3H8 v. ColtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. People v. NettlesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Ajamian v. Terzian-Feliz CA1/4California Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. Maleti v. WickersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API