Williams v. Beauty Lounge CA2/2

Filed 2/1/16 Williams v. Beauty Lounge CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

KELAN JANEA WILLIAMS, B261912

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TC027895) v.

BEAUTY LOUNGE et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William Barry, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Gates, O’Doherty, Gonter & Guy, Peter Gates, Thomas A. Scutti for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Offices of Pierpont M. Laidley, Pierpont M. Laidley for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

The trial court denied a defense motion to strike the lawsuit of plaintiff Kelan Janea Williams as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 After de novo review, we reverse. FACTS Williams was employed by defendants John Nguyen, Beauty Lounge and Mica Beauty. Defendants reported to the Los Angeles County sheriff that they suffered financial loss because Williams purchased products from their kiosk for unauthorized discounted prices. As a result of defendants’ report, Williams was arrested. She was charged by the Los Angeles County district attorney with grand theft by embezzlement, a felony. Williams pleaded not guilty. She appeared twice for a preliminary hearing, but defendants failed to appear though Williams had subpoenaed them. The prosecution was unable to proceed and the criminal case against Williams was dismissed. Williams alleges that defendants acted without probable cause “in initiating the prosecution of Plaintiff in that they did not honestly, reasonably and in good faith believe plaintiff to be guilty of the crime charged or of any crime at all in that Defendants [ ] authorized and approved Plaintiff’s purchase of products from their kiosk at a discounted rate above the wholesale price but below retail.” Defendants were notified whenever plaintiff made a purchase, by regularly audited computerized reports showing plaintiff’s name, the product she purchased, and the amount paid. Williams asserts a claim for malicious prosecution due to defendants’ alleged awareness that plaintiff committed no wrongdoing, evincing an improper motive or purpose against Williams when they made false accusations then failed to appear at the preliminary hearing. A second cause of action is for “infliction of emotional distress.” Defendants moved to strike the pleading under the anti-SLAPP statute. They argued that plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution arises from their exercise of the constitutionally protected right to petition. Defendants asserted that plaintiff will fail on