Larson v. Axelrod
Filed 7/25/06 Larson v. Axelrod 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| CHRISTOPHER LARSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RAQUEL AXELROD, Defendant and Respondent. | B180378 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC316301) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Ernest M. Hiroshige, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Fuchs & Associates, John R. Fuchs and Gail S. Gilfillan for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Law Offices of Rex L. Brady and Rex L. Brady for Defendant and Respondent.
The decade long marital dissolution of Raquel Axelrod and Christopher Larson, twice reviewed by this court, continues in a malicious prosecution and abuse of process lawsuit. In the underlying federal litigation, the court described the story as one of love, loathing, and litigation. In that federal case, Axelrod and her attorney alleged Larson and his attorney discriminated against her in a prior state court dissolution proceeding. The district court found the facts fabricated and the lawsuit frivolous.
The current appeal is from the Superior Court's order granting Axelrod's special motion to strike the malicious prosecution and abuse of process causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 425.16 (commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP statute). The order reflects the incorrect conclusions that
(1) the showing by Larson and his attorney (appellants) that the underlying federal litigation terminated in their favor was insufficient to carry their burden
(2) Axelrod showed she relied on the advice of counsel in the underlying federal litigation. The trial court should have denied Axelrod's motion to strike the malicious prosecution cause of action.
The trial court correctly granted Axelrod's motion to strike the abuse of process cause of action. With respect to this cause of action, Axelrod has shown the litigation privilege is a complete defense. We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's order, remanding the case to the trial court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
State Court Dissolution Proceedings (Lawsuit I)
Axelrod and Larson were married for three years when, in September 1997, Axelrod filed for dissolution. (In re Marriage of Larson (Dec 19, 2003, B162991) [nonpub. opn.].) Division Two of this court upheld a $21,000 sanction against Axelrod because of her persistent failure to comply with discovery requirements. (Ibid.) In a separate opinion, Division Two of this Court affirmed the distribution of property, after modifying the award made to Larson. (In re Marriage of Larson (October 17, 2005, B170506 [nonpub. opn.].)[2]
Federal Court Civil Rights Proceedings (Lawsuit II)
In December 2002, Axelrod filed a complaint in federal district court, alleging a violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. The complaint alleged that Larson and Fuchs obstructed justice in the Superior Court dissolution proceedings by threatening a witness, Dr. Mark Shatz. According to Axelrod's civil rights complaint, R. Brian Oxman, Axelrod's then attorney, was informed of these threats by Shatz. Dr. Shatz stated that â€
