#lawzilla

[thebeast-dennis-etcetera]

The One

Prompt: Hours away from your wedding, you visit Gibbs, needing to ask him a question that’s been on your mind for years.

Various family members had come in and out of your room, helping you get ready for your wedding that was set to happen in 6 hours. It wasn’t a big venue, just mainly close family and friends and their plus ones. The location was a botanical garden your fiancé’s parents had decided on, even after you had voiced that you preferred it in a small church. During most of the wedding planning you didn’t get much say at all, all of it being organized by your future mother in law who felt she knew best.

Your fiancé was too submissive to go against his parents wishes, not wanting to ruffle anyone’s feathers at the cost of making you feel unimportant.

You looked at yourself in the mirror, hair finished as your curls fell over your shoulders and sighed. Something was keeping you uneasy all morning. You could just blame it on cold feet but that wouldn’t explain why you couldn’t stop thinking about a certain someone that wasn’t your husband to be. You looked down at the multiple unanswered texts you had sent him throughout the day, telling him you really wished to see him at the wedding.

He was your friend of 5 years, you two met on a joint operations case between the FBI and NCIS. The both of you kept in touch, meeting up for a quick cup of coffee and chat almost every week. You would be lying if you said you never thought of him more than just a friend but for whatever reason, it never exceeded friendly conversations and occasional late night cafe dinners. The last thing you wanted was to ruin your friendship by catching feelings that most likely weren’t returned.

4 years later and multiple bad breakups later, you found the one you wanted to marry. Or at least think you did. Sure, the two of you weren’t as compatible as you’d like but it’ll work itself out with time, right?

Another big sigh from you, it became clear what you were gonna have to do. Getting up and dressing into something casual, you grabbed your keys and left your room. No one stopped to see where you were going, all too worried about whatever task they had been given by mother in lawzilla, so getting in your car and leaving went smoothly.

The drive wasn’t long as you pulled into the quiet neighborhood and parked just outside his house. His old truck parked in the driveway told you he was there as your hands suddenly became clammy with nervousness. You got out of your car and made your way up to his door. You knew it was unlocked and all you needed to do was walk in but you were frozen. You hadn’t thought your plan all the way through and now your head was filling with doubts.

As if your body knew something you didn’t, your hand opened the door and your legs carried you in. Surely, he had heard you come in so there was no turning back now. The house was quiet except the sound of power tools being used from down below.

The floor creaked as you walked towards the basement and began to descend the stairs. You were going to call out his name in announcement but he was already standing there looking up at you. Dressed in a plain blue plaid button down and some cargo pants slightly dusted in wood shavings, it was a good look for him.

“Hey Jethro,” you started.

“Hey Y/N.”

You made it to the bottom of the stairs and continued until he was only a few feet in front of you.

“You haven’t been answering any of my texts.”

He licked his lips and looked down guiltily before responding. “I know.”

Feeling antsy, you walked over to the boat and ran your hands over the newly sanded edges. He took that time to grab two small glasses and pour 2 fingers of his whiskey in them, handing you one.

You took a bigger sip than necessary, hoping it would help the building anxiety.

“I can’t believe I’m getting married in less than 6 hours,” you said, leaning against his workbench.

“Lucky man,” he responded flatly.

“Is he?” He gave you a look of inquiry. “I mean we don’t have that much in common. His parents don’t really like me and..”

You stopped, refraining yourself from finishing the sentence and took another sip of the whiskey.

“I don’t know. I mean did you think your ex wife was gonna be the one when you married her? Marriage is a big deal, you don’t just go and marry anyone. What’s so special about me?”

“I don’t think I’m the one to ask about marriage,” he said with a short chuckle. “But I’m sure he has many reasons why you’re special to him.”

“I don’t know Jethro. I never really thought in depth about our relationship until now. It almost feels as if the last year and a half was a blur, nothing standing out too much. Our relationship isn’t like what they describe in all the romantic books and movies. Sometimes I feel like he’s more of a platonic friend than fiancé.”

“Then why say yes to marrying him?”

You didn’t have a straight answer for his question. The proposal had gone so fast and in public, you didn’t have much time to think about it without looking like you were gonna say no.

“I don’t really know. Because it was the logical choice? We’ve been together for almost 2 years now.”

He shook his head and swirled the amber liquid in his mason jar, taking a step towards you.

“You don’t marry someone because it’s logical Y/N. You marry them because you can’t see yourself with anyone else and want nothing more than to spend every day coming home to them. You marry all of their traits that you fell in love with, including the weird ones. Marriage is a team effort and if you aren’t both absolutely on the same page, it’ll never work.”

Tears welled in your eyes, his words making you realize just how dumb you have been. You knew your fiancé wasnt your soulmate. You had more in common with Jethro than him. And that’s what bugged you the most. Being best friends with the person you wanted something more from and not having the courage to say anything. But now it’s time. It’s time for you to know if there could’ve been anything between you and Jethro.

“I just need you to answer one question Jethro. Is there something more between us than just being friends? Because every time I’m with you, I can’t think straight. I enjoy every moment we spend together and can’t wait for the next one. You always make me feel so happy and cared for but am I alone in those feelings?”

He sighed and finished his drink, turning to walk away.

“Don’t ignore the question Jethro! Please. Just talk to me.”

“What do you want me to say Y/N? That I’m jealous that your boyfriend of 1 year gets to marry you instead of me? He doesn’t know you. He doesn’t know that you like to look up at the stars at night when you’ve had a bad day at work. He doesn’t know that you actually have a PhD in science but don’t tell anyone because you don’t want to feel like you’re better than anyone else.”

He turned back, now headed your way, confessions continuing to spill from his mouth.

“I bet he doesn’t notice the way you arch your eyebrow when you’re lying. Or how you pour half a gallon of milk into your coffee after adding a cup of sugar. You’re right Y/N. There is something more between us but it’s too late. You’re gonna marry him and I’ll be there for you just as your friend.”

You let the tears fall, elated and heartbroken at the same time.

“But I want to be the one,” he said cryptically, /settng his whiskey down.

“One what?” you asked as he came closer, causing your breath to hitch.

“The one to kiss you before he takes you away from me,” he breathed, closing the gap between the two of you. Almost reflexively, the glass you had dropped to the floor and overcome with so many emotions it made you light headed, you kissed him back, holding onto him for support. One hand on the back of your neck and the other holding you tight, your tongues met and danced with each other until both of you were out of breath.

Both of you let out heavy breaths as you pulled apart but he didn’t let you go. He placed a gentle kiss to your forehead, your nose, your jaw and your neck, making your eyes flutter closed. He then released you and took a step back. His words and actions had changed everything.

You couldn’t get married now knowing what you knew. You weren’t sure how to put it into words but something told you that Jethro knew that as well.

“Thank you,” you finally answered. You were sure your makeup was ruined from all the crying and stress but it didn’t matter any more. You pulled him in for a hug, arms wrapping around his neck and just breathing him in. Without hesitation, his arms held you close again. Yeah, you could get use to this.

[lavender-long-stories]

Appropriately Unhinged Descriptions [Spoilers]

A broke executive assistant caught in the middle of a 30-year-old drama between her boss and her dad ends up befriending her boss's older son and marrying the younger son, but not before being dragged into some other shenanigans regarding fake marriages, an ugly ring, a mother-in-lawzilla, and possibly the eminent death of... someone. - @nikandrros

Testing Success [SasuHina]

[dreamofstarlight]

Its funny you usually think mother of the bride or groom would be very involved in the weddings of their children but it was the opposite in Joe and Rose’s case 💀 like did Rose even have an input?

I don't know if she did lol! Like maybe with flower arrangements or something but Joe Sr was the bridezilla or father-in-lawzilla

[absolmon]

God, that would be the wildest wedding. Like poor Ning Yingying and Jin Ling, they’re the sanest ones here.

The idea of Lan Wanji being freaked out by Yue Qingyuan like one of those toddlers being introduced to their parents twin for the first time is hysterical. Maybe Lan Xichen and Yu Qingyuan are standing besides each other and it makes LWJ start testing them to see if one of them is a doppelgänger.

Lan Qiren having a minor Qi deviation and Mu Qingfan being like, I have two options for curing this either we go on a week long quest to find a plant that only blooms on the dark side of the red moon or someone dual cultivates with this man. LQR tries to just shrivel away.

Tianlang Jun wedding crashing ala Maleficent because he’s never been to a human wedding before and NYY is kinda sort transcendently his granddaughter. Like he isn’t sure about how he feels about Luo Binghe but the shared look of disgust on NYY, SQQ, and LBH’s faces when he says that brings him great joy and proves his theory. He brings a book of the filthiest poetry as a wedding gift.

Liu Qingge keeps trying to bring monster carcasses as gifts but Jiang Wanyin keeps chasing him off yelling about manners, which is giving LQG deja vu and only encouraging him to find something cool enough JWY can’t say no to it.

Shen Qingqiu and Jiang Wanyin are being the in lawzillas of the whole thing, even though SQQ is mostly just coming up with ideas and throwing them at Shang Qinghua to execute whilst JWY is running around putting out fires by yelling at them. Wei Wuxian keeps trying to help but he actually has horrible party planning skills and keeps getting distracted by the melancholy of missing his Shijie’s wedding.

Eventually the wedding goes off with the least amount of deaths that could possibly happen and it goes down in history as the cultivation worlds most insane wedding. NYY and JL vow never to let their children’s weddings get as insane as theirs.

Re Jin Ling/Ning Yingying: The extended martial in laws possible shenanigans of this are also delightful.

Imagine JC (+/- WWX and the multiclan duckling contingent that is the rest of the juniors) trying to out plan a wedding against various peak lords and their compatriots. Also Fairy is there 🤣

you've highlighted the most important thing which anon and I neglected which is that NING YINGYING DESERVES A DOG

Lan Wangji is off his game because Yue Qingyuan is so disconcertingly like his brother

Liu Qingge keeps starting fights and Jiang Cheng can't not fight back

Lan Qiren thought that this Shen Qingqiu seemed like a nice young man until someone showed him a copy of something that would not be permitted in Cloud Recesses

Wei Wuxian accidentally talks with Shen Qingqiu about monsters for too long one day and now Binghe's trying to kill him

[veliseraptor]

What 20k fic is that? The former 5 headcannons one. A different (but nosy) anon is inquiring.

oh yeah it’s gonna be the one where Jiang Cheng decides that he is going to plan Wei Wuxian’s wedding whether he likes it or not, and also his mood about it is sort of like that “I can’t believe I’m going to sleep with him plan his wedding”/”you don’t have to”/”no, I’m gonna”

this is how you start mending your relationship with your sibling, right, by becoming their brother-in-lawzilla

Wei Wuxian is half convinced this is some kind of elaborate punishment.

[sarbearvoiceovers]

December List Day 31: New Year’s Resolution

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Warning: some of my videos contain NSFW content, you've been warned!

Thank you to my buddy Alex for playing Joey in this video.

Artist: https://lawzilla.deviantart.com/ https://twitter.com/RyoAgawa

Sounds: Used: https://youtu.be/k468iGAd9hs

My Twitter: https://twitter.com/ShadbaseSlave69

My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Sarbear

My Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2p9qakRuPunchY2_TwD46A

[sacriscibum]

looted from Hentai Foundry

Lawzilla 

[haplesshuman]

Breaking Dawn Book 1

In which the plot...has gone walkabouts.

OK, the Book of Suck has been very handy. Whilst I was reading Breaking Dawn, I made notes in the Book of Suck. I have 35 notes, covering 8 pages.

Eight. A5. Pages. Full. Of. Plot. And. Characer. Issues.

Breaking Dawn is an anomaly in the Twilightverse in that I actually wanted to find out if Bella ended up a vampire. So, I looked at the end of the book, because I didn’t have any spoilers and, at the age of 15, assumed that it would end with Bella as a vampire.

I was wrong.

This is the beginning of the beginning of the end. And I still haven’t found my rubber gloves. And... much soap was needed afterwards.

Also, I need to give you a PSA. Chapter 7 has several ethical issues, particularly regarding abortions and medical consent. It’s bad.

1. The preface. Bella asks, if you were being killed by your s/o, would you give them your life?

Nobody’s killing you, Bella. Not yet.

2. The Truck. Yes, Bella’s ancient truck. You know the one. First of all, when it failed to show up in the book - Bells is now driving what I dub the Gawkmobile, because everyone stares at it - I questioned what happened to it. Had it caught fire? Did it get in the crash?

No, it just broke. Or Edward sabotaged it. And then bought her the Gawkmobile. OK. Wait a second. 

THAT TRUCK WAS A GIFT, DAMN IT! Let’s put it this way. Bella is about to give up humanity, and it means she won’t be able to see her parents. The truck was a gift from her father. She may want something very solid to remember him by. And it ‘breaks down’ (cause never known). 

Also... nobody openly admires cars. 

And how does anyone know that the car is 

3. Staring. Nobody is staring at you. And if you didn’t want to get married, why did you say yes, Bells? I’m just going to headdesk.

5. Black Credit Card. How is this a status symbol, lest it be one for the super rich only? And how did a not-rich teenager get one?

Enjoy the mountain of credit card debt, kiddo.

6. Police Mess up. Charlie, if Billy knows that Jacob is A-OK, take the damn posters down. Put pictures on the corkboard. Decorate it like Homer decorated his workstation. Anything. 

7. The Uninvited: Leah. Her mum was invited. Her brother was invited. Leah was not. DUDE, THAT WILL MAKE HER BITTER IF SHE CARES ABOUT YOU, AND IF SHE DOESN’T, SHE’LL BE MAD SHE WAS LEFT OUT WHEN THE REST OF HER FAMILY WAS INVITED.

8. Charlie and Renee. Sorry, Tumblr doesn’t do accents. Charlie takes it well. I thought for a second Renee’s reaction would be an off-page one, but nope, the anti-marriage Renee Something takes it fine, just to make everything easier for Bells and Edward.

To be honest, it would’ve been better if Renee had actually died, and that was why Bella had come to Forks. 

I’ve seen that done, by the way. It’s the reason why Emily Benedict came to Mullaby in The Girl who Chased the Moon. And it worked fine. Especially since part of the dual plotline was Emily finding out the truth about what caused her mother to leave the town she’s been sent to.

10. Dartmouth. OK. This is actually combining two points from the Book of Suck. First of all, Bells accepted the Dartmouth place that was bought for her. Someone who worked their behind off to get that place didn’t get it.

And then, to make matters worse, Bells decides that she actually wants to go to college, and Edward suddenly says that he doesn’t think she wants to go to college.

If you don’t think she wants to go to college, WHY DID YOU PUT SO MUCH EFFORT INTO GETTING HER A PLACE?

I’m just going to swear.

11. Turning 19. Another combo point. At one point, Bella calls being frozen at 18 every woman’s dream. I beg to differ, having a sucky time at 18 with only a few bright spots. Turning 19 was fine. Heck, I consider 2nd July International 19-Year-Olds Day. The thing I disliked most about being 19 was spending my last day as a teenager attending yet another funeral. 

Later, Bells changed her mind about not turning 19. Well, of course. Now she’s not going to want to be a vampire ever, right?

12. Jacob at the wedding. Edward has Bells meet Jacob as a surprise, making me hope that the whole wedding was Bells being trolled and Jacob was just picking Edward up so they can elope.

Of course it’s not. And Jacob has a fit when Bella says that she wants to get turned into a vampire after the honeymoon. Jacob, please leave the wedding and get some brain bleach. Just get over yourself. 

13. The Geography Fail. Or rather, consistency fail! Rio de Janeiro isn’t on the west coast of Brazil, because Brazil doesn’t have a west coast. It’s on the east coast. Yet... within two sentences, it’s simultaneously on the east and west coast. The editor missed a trick there.

14. Isle Esme. What a name. Honestly, couldn’t it be Esme Isle? Or Esme Island? Whatever, I’d rather be on Tracy Island than there.

15. The swimming. Seeing as we don’t see Bella actually put on any swimming garb, I’m assuming she’s skinny-dipping, which means I’m just going to go to my happy place and check the Miami Open scores. BRB. I’ll just leave you with a tennis gif whilst I check. 

And now I’m back.

16. I almost forgot... The plot of chapter 2 is... Soppy dialogue, Edward is dragged away, Bells remembers the Denali sisters who I’ve never heard of before and they talk about immortal children.

OK. This is the last book. I have no idea who the Denali sisters are. 

Hapless Human considers putting an appropriate metaphor in, but then remembers how immortal children are created and thinks better of it.

Oh yeah. THEY’RE CREATED BY TURNING SMALL CHILDREN INTO VAMPIRES. BASICALLY, DRINKING THEIR BLOOD AND EFFECTIVELY KILLING THEM.

Wait a second. A telephone is calling. The great white telephone.

And the concept of immortal children was never mentioned before. Someone fired the gun without telling us that there’s a gun to be fired in the first place!

Oh, then we have nightmares. Bells needs a shrink.

17. Stereotypes. Enter stage left, cue unfortunate implications, I need say no more.

18. Alice and Renee. Alice is a sister-in-lawzilla. She’s ended up being more of a bridezilla than the actual bride! 

And as for Renee... she’s so OOC about the wedding I think she’s been possessed.

In the Book of Suck, I said I’d insert the relevant gif. So I shall. Anti-marriage person planning a wedding with the groom’s sisterzilla? I think we need a facepalm,

19. Part 1 of Chapter 7. Bella fails at cooking, and is sick and is convinced she’s pregnant. SEVERAL LAWS OF BIOLOGY HAVE BEEN TORN UP AND SET ON FIRE. Also, we have to talk periods. They’re very irregular, especially in the early days. I should know, I’m a woman and can’t predict my periods from one month to the next. If my period was five days late, I wouldn’t assume I was pregnant.

20. Vampire fertility. You can’t have male vampires be fertile and females infertile. Either BOTH are fertile or BOTH are infertile. Anything else is sexist.

So... Bella turns down calling on a local doctor (because needles) and decides to phone Carlisle. And Carlisle decides to tell all the diagnosis to Edward. This has been done on The Archers. It failed there. The pregnant woman’s diagnosis was told to her abusive husband and he used it to guilt trip her.

They split up.

Unlike that pregnancy, Bella’s pregnancy is a genuine accident. 

21. Pregnancy making you want kids. Bells has this happen to her. I quite honestly believe that the “you don’t want kids now? Just wait till you’re pregnant!” argument is a myth. And I actually want children someday.

22. Edward’s reaction. He’s not to thrilled about being a dad. In fact, he wants Bella to have an abortion. He’s basically told Carlisle that’s what’s going to happen, WITHOUT consulting Bella, who is CARRYING THE GOD DAMN BABY! If my RE classes are anything to go by, the father doesn’t have a say in whether an abortion happens or not. And since Bella’s the one carrying the baby, what she says goes. IT’S HER BODY, NOT YOURS YOU IDIOT!

...Urgh.

Anyway. Next week, we’re doing the second Princess Diaries book. It won’t make me sick, I hope. And I hope I’ll have the rubber gloves for part 2.

[pretty--boy]

Art by: LawZilla

Source: http://lawzilla.deviantart.com/art/Riven-636253849

[bestmarijuanaboutiques]

Californian Cannabis Lawyers In Court Tussle

New Post has been published on https://bestmarijuanaboutiques.com/?post_type=wprss_feed_item&p=23791

Californian Cannabis Lawyers In Court Tussle

Lawzilla has published the following

  HENRY G. WYKOWSKI v. FRANK CHIMIENTI

Filed 10/28/19 Wykowski v. Chimienti CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

HENRY G. WYKOWSKI,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANK CHIMIENTI,

Defendant and Appellant.

B293271

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC709545)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David S. Cunningham III, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of J. David Nick and J. David Nick for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Andrew Scher and Andrew F. Scher for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Frank Chimienti appeals from an order denying his special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, also known as the anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiff Henry G. Wykowski sued Chimienti, an attorney, for malicious prosecution. Wykowski alleged that Chimienti was actively involved in the filing of a legal malpractice lawsuit against him, without probable cause and with malice. Chimienti argued in his anti-SLAPP motion that Wykowski could not demonstrate a probability of success on the merits of his claim. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

A. IRS Proceeding

Daniel Sosa owned and operated Mid City Cannabis Club, a marijuana dispensary (Mid City). Chimienti was business counsel for Sosa and Mid City. In March 2011, the IRS audited Sosa and Mid City for tax years 2007 to 2009. On January 27, 2012, the IRS issued an Income Tax Discrepancy Adjustment to Sosa, stating that he owed approximately $35,000 for tax years 2007 to 2009 (January 2012 Demand Letter). Sosa retained Michael Zipperstein as his accountant. On or about October 18, 2012, the IRS issued a revised demand letter, stating that Sosa owed approximately $135,000 in taxes (October 2012 Demand Letter).

In November 2012, Chimienti contacted Wykowski and explained that he was helping Sosa and Mid City with the IRS audit and would oversee, manage, and handle the accountants and tax attorneys that Sosa planned to hire. On November 26, 2012, Chimienti sent Wykowski an “‘intake email,’” which attached the October 2012 Demand Letter and requested that Wykowski call about “a referral fee.” After receiving the email, Wykowski spoke to Chimienti and declined to pay Chimienti a referral fee.

On January 10, 2013, Sosa retained Wykowski to represent him in the IRS proceeding. Sosa instructed Wykowski to file a petition challenging the IRS’s demand for payment.

In May 2014, Sosa instructed Chimienti to tell Wykowski to withdraw the petition, which Wykowski did.

On May 30, 2014, Wykowski, on behalf of Sosa, entered into a settlement agreement with the IRS, in which Sosa agreed that he owed $128,119.98 in taxes for the 2009 tax year. On July 10, 2014, the settlement was entered as a United States Tax Court decision.

On August 25, 2014, Sosa received an updated bill from the IRS, which sought approximately $135,000 in taxes for the years 2007 to 2009.

Sometime later, Wykowski’s legal assistant sought to collect outstanding legal fees from Sosa and sent him an email requesting payment. Chimienti responded by email, stating that Sosa was dissatisfied with the settlement and asked, “Now you are coming at the client with a $32,000 bill? I propose that you squash the entire bill and chalk it up to a lesson learned[.]” (Italics omitted.) On February 6, 2015, Chimienti sent another email to Wykowski’s legal assistant stating: “[S]hould collection efforts continue concerning this matter I am advising the client to retain counsel to file a malpractice claim. [¶] If [Wykowski] would like to send over a mutual release—my client forgoing his claims and the firm forgiving any amounts it claims are due and owing for work done on this matter, I will pass it on to the client for review.”

B. Malpractice Lawsuit

On March 9, 2016, Sosa and Mid City, represented by a lawyer who is not a party to this appeal, filed a complaint against Wykowski and Zipperstein, alleging that the two had engaged in professional negligence (the Malpractice Lawsuit). Among other things, the complaint alleged that in “February 2014, Wykowski and Zipperstein incorrectly informed . . . Sosa that if he did not challenge the IRS’s position, his individual tax liability would be approximately $35,000, as reflected in the [January 2012 Demand Letter].” The complaint further alleged that Wykowski and Zipperstein were “aware of the [October 2012 Demand Letter], but never discussed it with Mr. Sosa.” Sosa further alleged that Wykowski did not discuss the terms of the settlement with him and did not show the settlement or the final decision of the tax court to him. According to the complaint, Sosa did not learn that the IRS sought $135,000 in taxes until April 2015, when he received a response to his Freedom of Information Act request. Sosa alleged that but for Wykowski and Zipperstein’s advice, he would have continued to challenge the IRS’s assessment and would have either prevailed or paid a much smaller amount than the settlement.

On September 15, 2017, Wykowski moved for summary judgment. Wykowski asserted that Sosa’s claim against him was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 340.6. Wykowski further argued that Sosa could not demonstrate that Wykowski had breached any duty to him.

The trial court granted Wykowski’s motion. In granting summary judgment, the court ruled that Sosa’s complaint was time-barred. The court also concluded that Sosa had failed to produce any evidence that Wykowski knew or should have known that Sosa subjectively believed his personal tax liability was only $35,000. In reciting the undisputed facts, the court noted that Sosa admitted he received the October 2012 Demand Letter at his home and brought the letter to Zipperstein and Chimienti, but nonetheless claimed that he “was unaware of the revised amount when he met with Zipperstein and Chimienti and the envelope containing the revised amount was opened. When he instructed Chimienti to tell Wykowski to withdraw the petition regarding his personal tax liability, Wykowski confirmed the instruction by email with Chimienti and attached a copy of the revised demand. Chimienti admit he did not look at [the] attachment.”

The trial court continued, “[Wykowski] has demonstrated that he had no way of knowing that Mr. Sosa had the subjective impression that Sosa’s tax liability was $35,000. When he was engaged, Wykowski was provided by . . . Zipperstein and . . . Chimienti on November 2012, a scanned copy of the [October 2012 Demand Letter]. He was never provided with the [January 2012 Demand Letter].”

Finally, the trial court discussed Chimienti’s deposition testimony: “Chimienti testified that his role was to act as a go between vis-[à]-vis Wykowski and Sosa. Chimienti admitted at his deposition that he received an email from Wykowski indicating that Wykowski had filed a petition challenging Sosa’s personal taxes and challenged only the erroneous capital gains. Those capital gains were the reason for the amended amount and should have alerted Chimienti that a different amount was being sought. Chimienti admit that if he’d read the email, which he admit he did not, it would have rung a bell that something was amiss and Chimienti would have asked to look at the petition. This appears to be Chimienti’s mistake rather than Wykowski’s mistake.”

B. Wykowski’s Malicious Prosecution Complaint

On June 12, 2018, Wykowski filed his malicious prosecution complaint against Sosa and Chimienti. Wykowski alleged that Chimienti was “actively involved” in the filing of the Malpractice Lawsuit. The complaint attached: (1) the complaint in the Malpractice Lawsuit; (2) Wykowski’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) the trial court’s order granting summary judgment.

C. Anti-SLAPP Motion

On July 2, 2018, Chimienti filed an anti-SLAPP motion. He asserted, and it is not disputed, that the malicious prosecution complaint arose from Chimienti’s protected activity. Chimienti further argued that Wykowski could not demonstrate a probability that he would prevail on his claim because, among other things, Wykowski could not establish the underlying action was brought at Chimienti’s direction.

In response, Wykowski submitted his declaration, which described the email communications between Wykowski’s legal assistant and Chimienti regarding the outstanding legal fees, and attached the February 6, 2015, email message from Chimienti.

On August 1, 2018, the trial court issued its ruling denying the anti-SLAPP motion. The court found that although Chimienti’s alleged conduct was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, Wykowski had demonstrated a probability of success on the merits of his malicious prosecution cause of action.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Anti-SLAPP Principles

Section 425.16, “California’s so-called anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, is intended to resolve quickly and relatively inexpensively meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech on matters of public interest.” (Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, 639.) “A court’s consideration of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-pronged analysis. [Citation.] . . . [T]he Supreme Court has expounded on the standards to be applied in this two-pronged analysis: ‘At the first step, the moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them . . . . If the court determines that relief is sought based on allegations arising from activity protected by the statute, the second step is reached. There, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that each challenged claim based on protected activity is legally sufficient and factually substantiated. The court, without resolving evidentiary conflicts, must determine whether the plaintiff’s showing, if accepted by the trier of fact, would be sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment. If not, the claim is stricken.’” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 614.)

B. Standard of Review

An order denying a special motion to strike under section 425.16 is directly appealable. (§§ 425.16, subd. (i) and 904.1, subd. (a)(13).) We review the trial court’s order de novo. (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 940 (Sweetwater).)

C. Second Prong: Probability of Prevailing

Wykowski concedes, and we agree, that Chimienti has satisfied the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute. “By definition, a malicious prosecution suit alleges that the defendant committed a tort by filing a lawsuit. [Citation.] Accordingly, every Court of Appeal that has addressed the question has concluded that malicious prosecution causes of action fall within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 735 (Jarrow).)

Because Chimienti met his burden on the first prong, the burden shifted to Wykowski to demonstrate that his claim had “‘“minimal merit”’” to proceed. (Sweetwater, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 940.) “As to the second step inquiry, a plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, . . . proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’” (Ibid.) “[The court’s] inquiry is limited to whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and made a prima facie factual showing sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 384-385.)

“The tort [of malicious prosecution] consists of three elements. The underlying action must have been: (i) initiated or maintained by, or at the direction of, the defendant, and pursued to a legal termination in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff; (ii) initiated or maintained without probable cause; and (iii) initiated or maintained with malice.” (Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (2017) 3 Cal.5th 767, 775.)

1. Initiating Malpractice Lawsuit

Chimienti contends that Wykowski cannot demonstrate that he initiated or directed the Malpractice Lawsuit. According to Chimienti, he cannot be liable for malicious prosecution because he did not file the Malpractice Lawsuit; did not appear on the case; did not sign any pleadings; and, at least according to Chimienti, did not assist in the prosecution of the case once it was filed. In support of his argument, Chimienti cites the following language from Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1095 (Cole): “Attorneys may easily avoid liability for malicious prosecution without having to engage in premature work on a case if they refrain from formally associating in it until their role is triggered. Attorneys may also avoid liability if they refrain from lending their names to pleadings or motions about which they know next to nothing.” (Id. at p. 1119.) Chimienti’s argument is meritless.

In Cole, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 1095 two sets of attorneys associated as counsel for plaintiff on a matter for purposes of trial but, before they conducted any legal work, the matter was decided in the defendant’s favor at summary judgment. (Id. at pp. 1103-1104.) The defendant then sued the attorneys of record in the underlying lawsuit for, among other claims, malicious prosecution. (Id. at p. 1104.) The trial court granted the attorneys’ anti-SLAPP motions “based on their representation that they did not participate” in the underlying lawsuit. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal disagreed and rejected the attorneys’ argument that they could not be liable for malicious prosecution. (Id. at pp. 1115-1116.) As the Court of Appeal explained, “[W]e hold, among other things, that the attorneys’ anti-SLAPP special motions to strike . . . were improperly granted, and that attorneys who appear on all of the pleadings and papers filed for the plaintiffs in the underlying case cannot avoid liability for malicious prosecution merely by showing that they took a passive role in that case as standby counsel who would try the case in the event it went to trial.” (Id. at p. 1100, fn. omitted.) The Court of Appeal reasoned that the attorneys’ premature association in the matter, prior to trial, “undercuts the public policy argument that attorneys should not be required to create a record of diligence before their role as cocounsel is triggered.” (Id. at p. 1119.) It is in this context that the court made the statement quoted in Chimienti’s appeal. (See ibid.) Cole, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 1095 thus does not support the proposition that lawyers who do not appear on pleadings are immune from malicious prosecution claims. (Hinerfeld-Ward, Inc. v. Lipian (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 86, 101 [“‘“It is elementary that the language used in any opinion is to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court. [Citation.] Further, cases are not authority for propositions not considered. [Citation.]”’”]; Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 957.)

Wykowski alleged that Chimienti was liable for malicious prosecution not because he appeared as counsel on pleadings but because he allegedly directed the filing of the Malpractice Lawsuit. Indeed, “‘[o]ne may be civilly liable for malicious prosecution without personally signing the complaint initiating the . . . proceeding. If a person, without probable cause and with malice, instigates or procures the [action], he is liable.’” (Jacques Interiors v. Petrak (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1363, 1371-1372; see also Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1131, fn. 11 [“The instigator, as well as the party, may be liable” for malicious prosecution]; Nunez v. Pennisi (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 861, 873 (Nunez) [“A person who did not file a complaint may be liable for malicious prosecution if he or she ‘instigated’ the suit or ‘participated in it at a later time’”].)

On this record, Wykowski has demonstrated sufficient merit as to this element. Chimienti’s role as Sosa’s business counsel, his self-described role as a go-between in the IRS proceeding, his sending of the October 2012 Demand Letter to Wykowski, his failure to send the January 2012 Demand Letter to Wykowski, and his February 6, 2015, email threatening to direct Sosa to sue Wykowski for legal malpractice, are sufficient to satisfy for anti-SLAPP purposes the first element of a malicious prosecution claim.

2. Lack of Probable Cause

Chimienti next argues that Wykowski cannot demonstrate that the Malpractice Lawsuit lacked probable cause. “‘Probable cause exists when a lawsuit is based on facts reasonably believed to be true, and all asserted theories are legally tenable under the known facts.’ [Citation.] The court must ‘determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable.’ [Citation.] We evaluate this question of law under an objective standard, asking whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1540; Cole, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 1106.)

“A litigant lacks probable cause ‘“if he [or she] relies upon facts which he [or she] has no reasonable cause to believe to be true, or if he [or she] seeks recovery upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to him [or her].”’” (Nunez, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 875.)

The mere granting of a summary judgment for the defense in the underlying action, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate lack of probable cause for a malicious prosecution action. (Jarrow, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 742-743.) Here, however, Wykowski submitted the Malpractice Lawsuit complaint, the motion for summary judgment, the order granting summary judgment, and his declaration and attached email. The Malpractice Lawsuit alleged that Wykowski had misled Sosa into believing that his tax liability was $35,000 and had concealed from Sosa that the IRS actually sought $135,000 in taxes. The evidence submitted by Wykowski suggested not only that Wykowski had done neither of these things, but that it was Chimienti who was responsible for Sosa’s alleged misunderstanding. Wykowski thus made a prima facie factual showing that if Chimienti directed the filing of the Malpractice Lawsuit, he did so knowing it was not supported by probable cause.

3. Malice

Finally, Chimienti argues that Wykowski failed to meet his burden to demonstrate malice. “The malice element of malicious prosecution goes to the defendants’ subjective intent for instituting the prior case. [Citation.] Malice does not require that the defendants harbor actual ill will toward the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution case, and liability attaches to attitudes that range ‘“from open hostility to indifference. [Citations.]”’ [Citation.] Malice may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the defendants’ lack of probable cause, supplemented with proof that the prior case was instituted largely for an improper purpose. [Citation.] This additional proof may consist of evidence that the prior case was knowingly brought without probable cause or was brought to force a settlement unrelated to its merits.” (Cole, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1113-1114; accord, Nunez, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 877.)

Again, the fact that Wykowski obtained summary judgment in his favor, by itself, does not establish the malice element as a matter of law. (Jarrow, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 743.) Here, however, Wykowski presented further evidence of improper motive. Chimienti’s statement that Sosa did not want to pay Wykowski’s attorney fees and Chimienti’s threat to advise Sosa to sue if Wykowski pursued the fees suggested that Chimienti was motivated by a desire to save money. Wykowski’s statement that he had previously rebuffed Chimienti’s request for a referral fee suggested a desire to retaliate. Finally, the trial court’s conclusion in the Malpractice Lawsuit, that Chimienti appeared to be responsible for Sosa’s misunderstanding about the taxes that he owed, suggested a desire to conceal. Such evidence supports the inference that Chimienti acted with malice. (Cole, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 1114.) Accordingly, Wykowski has made a prima facie factual showing as to the third element of malicious prosecution.

IV. DISPOSITION

The order denying the anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed. Plaintiff Henry G. Wykowski is entitled to recover costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

MOOR, J.

  More Information About the Parties

Henry G. Wykowski & Associates

https://wykowskilaw.com/

Henry G. Wykowski & Associates

State(s) Served: California

Year Founded: 1985

Description: Wykowski & Associates is one of the few firms in California that specializes in representing medical cannabis dispensaries and other related businesses.

Customers/Clients Include: N/A

Contact: 415-788-4545

https://industrydirectory.mjbizdaily.com/henry-g-wykowski-associates/

[sacriscibum]

looted from Hentai Foundry

Lawzilla 

[antsstyle]

Subdraw #8 Pool Party Fiora, by LawZilla: http://lawzilla.deviantart.com/art/Subdraw-8-Pool-Party-Fiora-668545270

[blog-of-tahuti]

Do you follow @lawzilla she makes good smite art? And will you reblog her?

I do follow her and will be reblogging her more from now on (I’ve reblogged her before, but only the more SFW ones). To be honest, because I’m more into women’s bodies than men’s, I’m probably far more likely to be reblogging art-with-vaginas like Lawzilla’s than dick pics anyway. :)