McCombs v. Confidential Report
In a prior action, Confidential Report, LLC, sued Paragon Film Group, LLC, and Matthew McCombs for fraud and other causes of action. At some point during the proceedings, Paragon ceased conducting business and filed a certificate of dissolution with the California Secretary of State. Ultimately, the trial court granted McCombs’s motion for summary judgment, which was affirmed on appeal.
Thereafter, McCombs filed a complaint against Charles E. Ruben and Charles E. Ruben and Associates (the firm that represented Confidential in the underlying action, referred to collectively as Ruben) and Confidential for malicious prosecution based on Confidential’s fraud cause of action against McCombs. Confidential and Ruben brought a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which the trial court denied.[1] In this appeal, Confidential and Ruben argue that the court erred in denying the special motion to strike, contending that McCombs failed to establish a probability of prevailing on his claim that Confidential lacked probable cause and acted with malice in pursuing the underlying fraud action. We disagree and affirm the order.
Comments on McCombs v. Confidential Report