Leyton v. Russo

Filed 5/23/06 Leyton v. Russo CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Ramona See, Judge. Affirmed.

The Law Office of Andrew M. Rosenfeld and Andrew M. Rosenfeld for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gordon & Rees, Cyril E. Armbrister, Jr., and Dennis S. Hyun for Defendants and Respondents Michael Russo and John Yoshitake.

Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, Keith G. Bremer, Jeremy Johnson and Ryan O. Hodge for Defendants and Respondents Linda Russo and Michael Russo.

After defending lawsuits brought by their homeowners' association and the County of Los Angeles (County) regarding their dog, Ralf, aka Ralph, the Leytons decided to sue for malicious prosecution. The trial court correctly granted respondents' anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion. The Leytons do not sue the entities that prosecuted the underlying actions against them. Even overlooking this fundamental problem, the Leytons could not prevail on their malicious prosecution claim because they won the underlying litigation only after a preliminary injunction was issued and they agreed to implement numerous restrictions concerning Ralf, evidence that there was probable cause to bring the underlying litigation. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The First Underlying Lawsuit

The Bridlewood Homeowners Association (Association) filed a complaint for breach of the CC& Rs and injunctive relief. The complaint alleged that the Leytons breached the CC& Rs by â€