Central Escrow v. Martin
Plaintiff and appellant Central Escrow, Inc., appeals from four orders granting special motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute)[1] and an order awarding attorney fees in favor of defendants and respondents Audrey Soh, Jeenah Huh, their attorney William W. Bloch and his law firm Excelus Law Group, Inc., and their trial attorneys Greg Martin, David M. Almaraz, and the law firm of Hamburg, Karic, Edwards & Martin, LLP (HKEM) in this malicious prosecution action based on a sexual harassment lawsuit. Central contends: 1) Huh’s motion to strike and Bloch and Excelus’s motion to strike were untimely, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear them; 2) Central showed a probability of prevailing on its malicious prosecution claims; and 3) the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Soh, Huh, Bloch, and Excelus.
We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Huh, Bloch, and Excelus to file their motions to strike, nor did the court lack jurisdiction to hear their motions. We also conclude the denial of attorney fees on the FEHA causes of action in the underlying case precludes Central’s malicious prosecution action. The court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Soh. Therefore, the orders granting the motions to strike and awarding attorney fees are affirmed.
Comments on Central Escrow v. Martin