Pasternack v. McCullough CA2/8
This malicious prosecution action arises from a collection action brought against Lawrence Pasternack by Thomas McCullough, Jr. and his law firm (collectively, McCullough) on behalf of Easton Builders Corporation (Easton). After Pasternack prevailed in the collection action and settled with Easton on other claims, he sued McCullough for malicious prosecution. McCullough appeals from a denial of his special motion to strike the malicious prosecution complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Among other things, McCullough contends Pasternack cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing because the trial court in the underlying collection action denied Pasternack’s motion for nonsuit; the denial established as a matter of law that McCullough and his client’s collection claim was legally tenable under the interim adverse judgment rule. We reverse the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion.
Comments on Pasternack v. McCullough CA2/8