Shankar v. Chu CA2/5

Filed 9/3/14 Shankar v. Chu CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ARVIND SHANKAR, M.D., B248413

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC119634) v.

JEFFREY CHU, M.D.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Karlan, Judge. Affirmed. Arvind Shankar, in Pro. Per. Moon and Yang, Kane Moon for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Arvind Shankar, M.D. appeals the trial court’s order granting the anti- SLAPP motion filed by defendant Jeffrey Chu, M.D. with respect to a cause of action for malicious prosecution. We conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on this claim, due to insufficient evidence to support his allegation that the underlying lawsuit between the parties terminated in his favor. We therefore affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Chu Sarang Medical Inc., a professional medical corporation (the “Corporation”), was incorporated in January 2004 by Simon Hong. Hong hired Jeffrey Chu, M.D. as the Corporation’s president. On March 15, 2005, Arvind Shankar, M.D. and the Corporation entered into an employment agreement; thereafter Shankar was the Corporation’s sole treating physician. In April 2006, the Corporation ceased business activities; it was later dissolved. In April 2007, Shankar filed a claim for unpaid wages with the Labor Commissioner purportedly due him from the Corporation. The Labor Commissioner awarded Shankar approximately $50,000 on his wage claim, which award was then entered as a judgment against the Corporation. Chu was subsequently added as a judgment debtor, based on a provision of Shankar’s employment agreement. Shankar filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment on November 29, 2010, releasing Chu in full from the judgment. The litigation underlying the current lawsuit was instituted in September 2007, when Chu and the Corporation sued Shankar, among others, alleging that the failure of the Corporation was due to the defendants’ conduct. Shankar cross-complained against Chu and the Corporation for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful termination of employment and unfair business practices. The Corporation, represented by attorney Robert Moest, served a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 Offer to Compromise on Shankar on or about September 24, 2012, offering to settle all claims between them for $1.5 million. Shankar accepted the offer on September 28, 2012. On September 26, 2012, after the offer was served but before it was