Legal Opinion
Barak v. the Quisenberry Law Firm
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 10, 2006No. B181029PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HASTINGS, J.
This appeal results from the grant of a special motion to strike appellant’s complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. We find no error and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant Frederick Barak filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against respondents Michael Larivee, the Quisenberry Law Firm, and certain members of the Quisenberry Law Firm. The Quisenberry Law Firm had represented Larivee in a previous action filed against appellant.
On July 16, 2004, the Quisenberry Law Firm filed and served a special motion to strike appellant’s complaint pursuant to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400California Supreme Court · 2001
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarcheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Habash v. L.A Pacific Center, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- State v. AndrewsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
- Sunset Millennium Associates, LLC v. Le Songe, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Perow v. Uzelac (In re Perow), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Harris v. CroceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.