https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59145ec3add7b0493420e8a2

​

​

Filed 9/17/13  Bashardoost v. G & F Concrete Cutting CA4/3

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION THREE

 

 

FARHAD BASHARDOOST,

 

      Plaintiff and Appellant,

 

            v.

 

G & F CONCRETE CUTTING, INC., et al.,

 

      Defendants and Respondents.

 

 

 

         G047548

 

         (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00572516)

 

         O P I N I O N

 

                        Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Geoffrey T. Glass, Judge.  Affirmed.

                        Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer and Mark B. Plummer for Plaintiff and Appellant.

                        Carno & Carlton, Anna M. Carno, Andrew C. Carlton and Edward Alberola for Defendants and Respondents.

 

*                      *                      *

                        Plaintiff and appellant Farhad Bashardoost appeals from a judgment entered after the court granted a special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16;[1]  section 425.16; anti-SLAPP motion) his malicious prosecution complaint against defendants and respondents G & F Concrete Cutting Inc., Carno & Carlton, LLP, and Andrew Carlton. 

 

He contends the court erred because the cause of action did not arise from protected activity and he demonstrated he had a probability of prevailing on the merits.  We conclude the court correctly granted the anti-SLAPP motion and affirm on that ground. 

 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

                        Plaintiff was the president of Kaveh Engineering and Construction Inc. (Kaveh).[2]  Kaveh, acting as a general contractor on a project for the County of Los Angeles Public Works, entered into a subcontract for G & F to provide concrete cutting.

                        In the original lawsuit, G & F sued Kaveh, plaintiff, and others.  The causes of action against Kaveh and plaintiff were for breach of written and oral contract, three common counts, and for money due under a license and a payment bond and pursuant to a stop notice.  G & F alleged plaintiff was the alter ego of Kaveh.  G & F pleaded as to both Kaveh and plaintiff that it performed work in addition to that specified in the subcontract, totaling not quite $8,300, which remained unpaid. 

                        After trial the court rendered judgment in G & F’s favor against Kaveh,  it dismissed plaintiff without prejudice.                                                

 

            [1] All further statutory references are to this code.

 

            [2]  Both parties state this as a fact although neither directs us to a record reference in support.