Tsz Keung Wong et al. v. Yi Dong et al.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that an interlocutory appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion was unavailable because the underlying malicious prosecution action qualified as a SLAPPback under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.18. The court concluded that review was available only by a timely peremptory writ petition, which the appellant had not filed. The court affirmed the denial of relief under Civil Code section 1714.10 because the malicious prosecution claim alleged independent liability by the attorneys for their own conduct.

Holdings

1. A denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in a SLAPPback action is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal; review must be sought by a peremptory writ petition filed within 20 days after service of the denial order.
2. A voluntary dismissal while an anti-SLAPP motion is pending does not prevent the resulting malicious prosecution action from qualifying as a SLAPPback when the trial court has ruled on the merits of the anti-SLAPP motion for attorney-fee purposes and determined that it would have been granted.
3. The inclusion of attorneys who were not parties to the prior litigation does not prevent the action from qualifying as a SLAPPback.
4. Civil Code section 1714.10 does not require prefiling approval or dismissal when a malicious prosecution complaint alleges that attorneys themselves acted maliciously and without probable cause and seeks to hold them independently liable for their own conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an interlocutory appeal lies from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion directed at a malicious prosecution action that qualifies as a SLAPPback under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.18.
2. Whether a voluntary dismissal of the prior action while an anti-SLAPP motion is pending prevents the subsequent malicious prosecution action from qualifying as a SLAPPback.
3. Whether the presence of attorneys who were not parties to the prior action prevents the subsequent malicious prosecution action from being a SLAPPback.
4. Whether Civil Code section 1714.10 requires dismissal of a malicious prosecution action against attorneys when the complaint alleges that the attorneys conspired with their client but also alleges that the attorneys independently acted maliciously and without probable cause.

Disposition

other