Caminero v. Chung
Appellant Michael M. Caminero (Caminero) filed a malicious prosecution complaint against respondent Jenny Chung (Chung) and others. The trial court granted Chungs motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16)[1]and awarded her attorney fees as a prevailing party ( 425.16, subd. (c)). Caminero appeals. He contends that he established a probability of prevailing on the favorable termination element of his malicious prosecution claim and, as a result, the trial court erred in granting Chungs motion. He also challenges the courts award of attorney fees to Chung as the prevailing party. Court reverse. Court conclude the trial court erred in granting the motion to strike because Caminero demonstrated a probability of prevailing. In light of our conclusion, Chung is not a prevailing party under section 425.16, subdivision (c) and is not entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to that statute.
Comments on Caminero v. Chung