Asset 1 Holdings LLC v. Kimora Lee Simmons

malicious prosecution, [she] must plead and prove that the prior judicial proceeding of which [she] complains terminated in [her] favor." (Asia Investment Co. v. Borowski (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 832, 837.) "A termination is . . . 'favorable' if its nature is such as to indicate the innocence of the accused"; "[i]f, on the other hand, the dismissal is on technical grounds, for procedural reasons, or for any other reason not inconsistent with [her] guilt, it does not constitute a favorable termination." (Id. at pp. 837-838.)

Plaintiff alleges that the action was terminated in her favor when the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in her favor. (Compl. P. 27.) The Court cannot conclude that the action was terminated in Plaintiff's favor in a way that shows innocence of the alleged conduct in that case. The action was an unlawful detainer action seeking judgment in Defendants' favor based on her alleged nuisance, interference with access to the unit, and failure to allow reasonable entry in breach of the lease agreement.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings, adjudicated in Plaintiff's favor, was one relating to the validity of the three-day notice to cure or quit. The order granting the motion had no analysis of innocence as to the claim of alleged nuisance, interference with access to the unit, and failure to allow reasonable entry in breach of the lease agreement. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that the action was pursued to a legal termination favorable to Plaintiff.

As for the second element, "[a] litigant will lack probable cause for his action either if he relies upon facts which he has no reasonable cause to believe to be true, or if he seeks recovery upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to him." (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 292.) The Court need only conclude here that Defendants brought a claim based on facts they believed were true, and the invalidity of the three-day notice does not show that they lacked probable cause to believe that they could not prevail on their theory of alleged nuisance, interference with access to the unit, and failure to allow reasonable entry in breach of the lease agreement.

Further, to demonstrate the third element, that Defendants litigated the underlying action with malice, Plaintiff must establish "actual ill will or some improper ulterior motive." (Soukup, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 292, italics omitted.) Notably, "[m]alice may also be inferred from the facts establishing lack of probable cause." (Ibid.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants litigated the action against Plaintiff with malice. Defendants brought an unlawful detainer action based on their belief of Plaintiff's violation of the lease, and there is no evidence that Defendants had some ill will toward Plaintiff or an ulterior motive for filing the action against her. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on her claim for malicious prosecution against Defendants.

Given that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the likelihood of prevailing on either one of her claims against Defendants, Defendants Barbara Bills and 11848 Venice LLC's Special Motion to Strike [CCP Sec. 425.16] is GRANTED.

Attorney Fees Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c), provides that "a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs." Under section 425.16, an award of fees and costs is mandatory. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131.) In that Defendants are the prevailing parties, they are entitled to their reasonable attorney fees and costs, the amount of which shall be determined upon Defendants filing a noticed motion for attorney fees and memorandum of costs.

Case Number: 26SMCV01019 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Asset 1 Holdings LLC's Motion to Compel Responses and Document Production is GRANTED. Defendant Kimora Lee Simmons shall serve code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Asset 1 Holdings LLC's Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Plaintiff Asset 1 Holdings LLC's Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,200, payable by Defendant Kimora Lee Simmons and defense counsel to Plaintiff Asset 1 Holdings LLC and Plaintiff's counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Plaintiff Asset 1 Holdings LLC to give notice.

Plaintiff served Defendant with its Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on June 10, 2026. (Mot., Sanders Decl. P. 2.) Responses were due on or before June 17, 2026, and Plaintiff's counsel also communicated with defense counsel to extend the response date to June 22, 2026. (Mot., Sanders Decl. P. 3.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mot., Sanders Decl. P. 4.) Accordingly, Defendant Kimora Lee Simmons shall serve code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Asset 1 Holdings LLC's Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party "unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Further, "[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff requests $2,935 in monetary sanctions for the motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $1,200, representing two hours spent preparing the motion and one hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motion, totaling three hours at the rate of $400 per hour. Thus, Plaintiff Asset 1 Holdings LLC's Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,200, payable by Defendant Kimora Lee Simmons and defense counsel to Plaintiff Asset 1 Holdings LLC and Plaintiff's counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. | Home -->)" -->