Lugo v. Pixior, LLC

4/18/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

SAIDE LUGO, B324368

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV17590 v.

PIXIOR, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Reversed. Ross, Peter W. Ross, Ira G. Bibbero; Farivar Law Firm, Fahim Farivar, Brian Ning and Catherine Y. Jung for Defendants and Appellants. Binder and Kalioundji, David S. Binder and Zena M. Kalioundji for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ Saide Lugo sued former employer Pixior, LLC and some of its employees for malicious prosecution. Lugo claimed Pixior had falsely reported her to police, which triggered a criminal

prosecution against her that she defeated. In response to the malicious prosecution lawsuit, Pixior defendants filed a special motion to strike, which the trial court erroneously denied. As a matter of law, Pixior had a winning defense: criminal prosecutors acted only after an independent investigation. It was error to deny Pixior’s motion. Factually, the parties are at loggerheads. According to Pixior, Lugo was a disgruntled employee who quit in a huff and, on her way out, spitefully deleted Pixior’s valuable computer files. According to Lugo, Pixior invented specious charges, hoping to make her look bad because her whistleblowing was about to help Pixior’s foe in an impending dispute. The parties agree, however, that Pixior complained to police, who arrested and charged Lugo. They also agree Lugo ultimately avoided criminal liability: Lugo’s criminal defense attorney discovered a Pixior employee lied under oath at the preliminary hearing. This tainted witness’s testimony was vitally significant: the damage to it convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the whole case against Lugo as unprovable. The trial court declared Lugo factually innocent. A prosecutor nonetheless made remarks Pixior says showed his continued belief in Lugo’s actual, but unprovable, culpability. Lugo contests this interpretation. In any event, Lugo then sued Pixior and some of its employees for malicious prosecution. The trial court denied the defense’s special motion to strike. Our independent review follows familiar standards for anti- SLAPP analysis. (E.g., Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment (2022) 13 Cal.5th 859, 871–872.)