8
(1) legally sufficient,6 and (2) supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to
sustain a favorable judgment if their evidence is credited. (Wilson v. Parker, Covert &
Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 (Wilson), superseded on other grounds as stated in
Hutton v. Hafif (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 527, 547.)
This is a “ ‘summary-judgment-like procedure.’ ” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at
p. 384.) The pleadings and evidentiary submissions of both parties are considered
(§ 425.16, subd. (b)(2)), and the evidence favorable to plaintiffs is accepted as true.
(Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 291 (Soukup).) Plaintiffs
need only establish that their claim has “ ‘minimal merit’ ” to avoid being stricken as a
SLAPP. (Ibid.) Although courts may not weigh the credibility or comparative strength
of the evidence, the motion is properly granted if the defendant’s evidence defeats the
plaintiff’s attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim as a matter of law. (Ibid.)
1. Malicious Prosecution
To establish a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must plead and prove
that the prior action: (1) was commenced by or at the direction of the defendant and was
pursued to a legal termination in the plaintiff’s favor; (2) was brought without probable
cause; and (3) was initiated with malice. (Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 965–
966 (Zamos).)
a. Favorable Termination
A voluntary dismissal is presumed to be a favorable termination on the merits
unless proved otherwise to a jury because the natural assumption is that one does not
simply abandon a meritorious action. (Sycamore Ridge Apartments LLC v. Naumann
(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1400 (Sycamore Ridge).) When termination is other than
by a judgment on the merits, the court examines the record to see if the disposition
reflects the opinion of the court or the prosecuting party that the action would not
succeed, and if there is a dispute as to the circumstances of the termination, the