Garach v. CUSA PCSTC CA4/3

Filed 10/30/14 Garach v. CUSA PCSTC 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ANILA J. GARACH, G048857 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00624755) v. OPINION CUSA PCSTC, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Derek W. Hunt, Judge. Affirmed. Anila J. Garach, in pro. per.; Law Offices of Sunil Shah and Sunil Shah for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wheatley Bingham & Baker and Mark H. Baker for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

Anila Garach appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing as a prohibited strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) her complaint against her

husband’s former employer and its attorneys (collectively, Coach USA). (See Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 [authorizing strike motions to gain early dismissal of a SLAPP lawsuit or cause of action]; all further statutory references are to this code.) Garach alleged in the complaint causes of action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). As we explained in a prior appeal (CUSA PCTSTC, Inc. Garach (June 29, 2011, G043704) [nonpub. opn.] (Garach I), Garach’s husband (J. Garach) stole almost $40,000 from his employer when he deposited and refused to return a miscalculated payroll check that credited him with working more than 8,000 hours in a single day as a bus driver. The trial court found on conflicting

evidence that Garach played a role in misappropriating a portion of the paycheck. We explained, however, that because the court limited her liability to around $3,000 while also concluding her husband legitimately earned at least that much of the disputed check, the judgment against Garach had to be reversed. Not content with her victory, Garach unwisely filed the underlying malicious prosecution action, which the trial court dismissed as a SLAPP suit on Coach USA’s motion, and Garach now pursues this wholly unmeritorious appeal. Had Coach USA sought sanctions for a frivolous appeal, we likely would have granted the motion. Simply put, Garach makes no effort to establish the record in the employer’s misappropriation lawsuit was devoid of evidence against her. Instead, she asserts the evidence against her must have been insufficient merely because Coach USA offered midtrial in the previous lawsuit to dismiss her as a defendant in exchange for a waiver of costs. Based on this unfounded premise, she asserts that when she refused to waive costs,