On October 29, 2025, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of defendants to a malicious prosecution action, concluding that the trial court was correct to grant the defendants’ motion brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, which effectively dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit. This critical victory is noteworthy for multiple reasons, which are described below.
Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, commonly known as California’s “anti-SLAPP” statute, was enacted to prevent and deter lawsuits brought primarily to chill or punish the valid exercise of constitutional rights of petition and free speech, particularly in connection with matters of public interest. Among the types of activity protected by the statute is filing a petition in a court of law, with a narrow exception applying where the petition-related activity is conclusively established by the plaintiff (i.e., the party opposing the anti-SLAPP motion) to be illegal. Cases have largely required that to conclusively establish that the petition-related activity was illegal, the defendant must admit to the illegality. Assuming that the defendant shows that the activity complained of by the plaintiff is protected under the statute, then the plaintiff must demonstrate that the claim is legally sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment in order to defeat the motion.
In this particular case, two of the defendants had originally filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and others, alleging federal civil rights violations. After some time, the defendants voluntarily withdrew their lawsuit. Concurrently, another defendant filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the plaintiff, which was initially granted but later denied at the hearing. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging malicious prosecution.
The appellate court, agreeing with the trial court, concluded that the plaintiff, claiming that the defendants’ lawsuit and TRO were illegal because the allegations against him were false (according to him) and thus not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, did not conclusively establish illegality because the plaintiff relied exclusively on his own self-serving declaration. The defendants did not admit to illegality and the plaintiff provided no further evidence of it. Moreover, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for malicious prosecution because he could not show sufficient facts that the defendants’ prior lawsuit and TRO were brought without probable cause—an essential element of a claim for malicious prosecution. Again, the court cited the plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence other than his own declaration.
This case is notable because not only does it reaffirm the different burdens of proof that apply under an anti-SLAPP motion, but it provides important insight into what an opposing plaintiff must show in order to conclusively establish that the defendant’s activity was not protected due to illegality, and what the plaintiff must allege and demonstrate in order for his or her malicious prosecution claim to survive legal scrutiny. Put succinctly, if the plaintiff wishes to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, he or she must have substantial evidence of the malicious prosecution at the outset of the litigation rather than rely on the discovery process to bear out mere suspicions of wrongdoing. To the extent this seems like it requires a lot of a plaintiff, courts have long held that virtually every malicious prosecution claim could be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. This case reaffirms this important precedent, as the anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to protect the right to petition and free speech.
If you have been named in a malicious prosecution or abuse of process lawsuit or believe that you are being targeted through legal processes as a result of your exercise of your right to petition or free speech, please do not hesitate to contact the experienced attorneys at Thakur Law Firm, APC, for a consultation about the applicability of California’s anti-SLAPP statute to your case.