S.A. v. Maiden

Plaintiff S.A. appealed a judgment entered in favor of defendants Jan Maiden and Does 1 through 50 (together Maiden), after the trial court granted her Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 anti-SLAPP motion to strike his complaint alleging causes of action against Maiden for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred by granting Maiden's anti-SLAPP motions because he established there was a probability he would prevail on his causes of action. Wife N.A. retained attorney Jan Maiden to represent her in obtaining restraining orders against her husband, S.A. With regard to one such order, N.A. withdrew her request for a permanent restraining order against S.A. and the trial court accepted her voluntary dismissal of that request. Because N.A. had moved to Orange County and filed for legal separation, child custody, and child and spousal support in the Orange County Superior Court, she no longer believed a permanent restraining order against S.A. was necessary. S.A. filed an order to show cause (OSC) why he should not be awarded attorney fees and costs as sanctions against N.A. for her extensions of the temporary restraining order, which was based on false allegations, and her subsequent dismissal of her request for a permanent restraining order. The trial court granted the motion, finding S.A. was the prevailing party, and awarded him $3,500 in attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeal concluded that S.A. did not, and could not, establish there was a probability he would prevail on any of the causes of action he raised. Finding no reversible error otherwise, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "S.A. v. Maiden" on Justia Law