Viriyapanthu v. Suriel CA4/3

Filed 7/16/14 Viriyapanthu v. Suriel CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PAUL VIRIYAPANTHU,

Cross-complainant and Appellant, G048981

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00624328)

CHRISTIE SURIEL, OPINION

Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. Affirmed. Paul Viriyapanthu, in pro. per., for Cross-complainant and Appellant. No appearance for Cross-defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Paul Viriyapanthu appeals an order granting Christie Suriel’s motion to strike Viriyapanthu’s first amended cross-complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public 1 participation (SLAPP). (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) We affirm.

FACTS

The operative cross-complaint features 15 causes of action against 20 cross- 2 defendants, including Suriel. Viriyapanthu contends his former employees, in conjunction with others, misappropriated funds from Viriyapanthu’s legal practice. Complications ensued for Viriyapanthu, including various lawsuits and state bar complaints by clients. Viriyapanthu accuses many of the cross-defendants of deeds amounting to fraud, extortion, and conspiracy. But there is very little mention of Suriel in the operative pleading. Paragraph 14 alleges Suriel is a resident of San Diego County. Paragraphs 52 and 53 indicate Suriel (a lawyer) was involved in filing a class action lawsuit against Viriyapanthu alleging the theft of client funds by Viriyapanthu. Along with other specified cross-defendants, Suriel “made a substantial contribution to furtherance of the lawsuit and was aware . . . that the lawsuit lacked merit.” Viriyapanthu alleges improper motives for this lawsuit and claims the suit was dismissed on March 27, 2012. Viriyapanthu cites these facts in support of a malicious prosecution cause of action against Suriel and others.