Duringer Law Group v.MacMillan
The Duringer Law Group, Stephen C. Duringer, and R. Scott Andrews (hereafter referred to collectively and in the singular as DLG, unless the context indicates otherwise), appeal from the order dismissing its malicious prosecution complaint against the respondents after the trial court granted the respondents’ special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP motion). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)[1] The respondents are DLG’s former client Alan MacMillan (MacMillan) and his attorneys, the law firm of Chambers, Noronha & Kubota (CNK), and attorneys Gary L. Chambers, Peter A. Noronha, Yoshiaki C. Kubota, and Jonathan Dwork (sometimes collectively referred to as the attorney defendants, unless the context indicates otherwise), who sued DLG for malpractice related to DLG’s handling of an unlawful detainer action on MacMillan’s behalf. DLG contends the trial court erred by granting the anti-SLAPP motion because it presented sufficient evidence of a probability of prevailing. DLG also challenges the order awarding the respondents their attorney fees as an abuse of discretion. We conclude DLG’s contentions are meritless, and we affirm both orders.
Comments on Duringer Law Group v.MacMillan