Another Malicious Prosecution Followed By AntiSLAPP Motion.

There was an underlying action for fraud, and almost two years later, a malicious prosecution action was filed by a defendant who prevailed earlier. The later action was against the earlier plaintiffs as well as their lawyers. In the malicious prosecution action, one lawyer successfully demurred, citing the statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. As to the other defendants, the trial court granted their special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. With regard to the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution against the lawyers, the appeals court affirmed, stating: “the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 340.6, subdivision (a) applies to a claim for malicious prosecution brought against an attorney that is based on that attorney’s participation in the litigation that forms the basis of the malicious prosecution claim.” Regarding the malicious prosecution claim against the nonlawyer defendants, the appeals court also affirmed, after concluding the plaintiff failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits of the lack of probable cause element of the claim.  (Yee v. Cheung (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; October 4, 2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 184, [162 Cal.Rptr.3d 851].)