Serdy v. Alnasser CA2/6

Filed 6/28/22 Serdy v. Alnasser CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

SHAY SERDY, 2d Civil No. B314924 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- Plaintiff and Respondent, 00545893-CU-PO-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

SUMAYYAH IBRAHIM ALNASSER et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Sumayyah Ibrahim Alnasser and Sumaya369, LLC (collectively, Appellants), appeal from the trial court’s order denying their motion to strike Shay Serdy’s complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 425.16.) Appellants contend Serdy failed to show a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of the malicious prosecution claim in her complaint. Alternatively, they contend that even if Serdy made the required showing, their reliance on

1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

the advice of counsel provides them with a complete defense to malicious prosecution. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Alnasser formed Sumaya369 in 2016. She hired Serdy as an independent contractor to register and maintain Sumaya369’s website. Alnasser and Serdy worked closely over the next three years, eventually growing Sumaya369 into a business with more than $7 million in annual revenue. Alnasser and Serdy’s relationship began to deteriorate in late 2019. The two disagreed about Sumaya369 funds and the compensation due to Serdy. There were also disagreements about the Sumaya369 website and whether Serdy changed passwords associated with it. Their disagreements came to a head in March 2020 when Alnasser fired Serdy. After her firing, Serdy sued Appellants in state court to enforce the contract. Alnasser then sued Serdy in federal court, asserting claims for computer fraud, trade secrets violations, racketeering, copyright violations, and conversion. In the weeks that followed she filed copyright and trademark applications. She later amended her complaint to add claims for statutory and common law trademark infringement. She also added Sumaya369 as a plaintiff in the action. Appellants moved for a preliminary injunction in federal court on their computer fraud, copyright, and trademark claims. The district court denied the motion. It concluded that Appellants were unlikely to succeed on their fraud claim because they failed to show that Serdy was not authorized to access the Sumaya369 website and passwords and because they failed to show that she changed any passwords. Appellants were unlikely to succeed on their copyright claim because there was “no