Sukumar v. Schwartz Semerdjian et al.
Ponani Sukumar appeals an order granting special motions to strike his complaint for malicious prosecution and an order awarding attorney fees and costs to the defendants prevailing on the motions. His complaint is yet another chapter in a long‑running saga of litigation between Ponani Sukumar and his former wife, Saraswati Sukumar.[1] Ponani's malicious prosecution complaint arises from Sara's prior malicious prosecution action against him, which in turn arose from Ponani's cross‑complaint for indemnity filed in an action for breach of contract by Shih-Hua Alan Lee against Ponani and Sara.
Ponani contends the evidence in the record is sufficient to support a determination that Sara pursued her malicious prosecution action against him without probable cause and with malice. He also contends the denial of his request for leave to conduct discovery on the issue of malice was error. We conclude that the evidence in the record compels the conclusion that Sara had probable cause to sue Ponani for malicious prosecution and that he therefore cannot show a probability of prevailing on his complaint against her. We therefore will affirm the orders granting the special motions to strike and awarding attorney fees and costs.
Comments on Sukumar v. Schwartz Semerdjian et al.