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.