Attorneys Fail In Argument They Played Only A Passive Role.

Plaintiff, who was the defendant in an underlying action, brought a malicious prosecution action.  The trial court dismissed the malicious prosecution action against some of the attorney defendants pursuant to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike [CCP §425.16] and granted attorney fees to them, after they argued they played only a passive role in the underlying litigation, although their names appeared on the pleadings and papers.  Plaintiff appealed.  The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the plaintiff showed “the requisite likelihood that he will prevail on his malicious prosecution claims against all defendants,” including the attorneys who claimed they played only a passive role.  Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Assoc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4: June 8, 2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1095.