Gaeta v. Silva
Appellant Brenda Silvathen 16 years old accompanied her sister, Jackie Silva, to a party on November 20, 2005. In the early morning hours, Jackies[1] boyfriend, respondent Miguel L. Gaeta (Gaeta), allegedly struck Brenda twice in the face. Brenda reported the incident to the police, and Miguel was charged with criminal assault (hereafter, the criminal case). The criminal case was ultimately dismissed, and Miguel thereafter brought a civil action against Brenda, alleging claims of malicious prosecution, slander, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In it, he alleged that Brenda made false allegations that resulted in his arrest, incarceration, and prosecution. He later amended the complaint to name as defendants Brendas parents, appellants Yolanda and Jamie Silva, who were previously identified as fictitious parties. Brenda, Yolanda, and Jamie (hereinafter, collectively, appellants) filed a motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The court granted the motion as to the claims for slander, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; it denied the motion to strike as to Miguels claim of malicious prosecution.
The initiation and prosecution of the criminal case were unquestionably protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. Further, Court conclude from our de novo review of the matter that Miguel failed to meet his burden of showing a probability that he would prevail on his malicious prosecution claim. We therefore reverse the order denying appellants anti SLAPP motion to strike the malicious prosecution cause of action in Miguels complaint.
Comments on Gaeta v. Silva