F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

X C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S , L L C, an Ariz ona limited liability

company , Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v

.
L I S A J

. B O R

O D K I N , Defendant-Appellee

. N o. 13-15544

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01426- GMS

X C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S , L L C, an Ariz ona limited liability

company , Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v

.
L I S A J

. B O R

O D K I N ; RA Y M O ND M O B R E Z ; I L I A N A L L A N E R A S , Defendants-Appellees

. N o. 13-16271

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01426- GMS

ORDER AND OPI NI ON

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Ariz o na G. Murray Snow, District J u dg e, Presiding
Arg ued and Submitted J une 10, 2015—San F rancisco, CaliforniaX C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S V

. B O R

O D K I N 2

F iled Aug ust 25, 2015

B efore: B arry

G. Silverman, Ronald M. Gould, and Andrew D. Hurwitz , Circuit J udg es.

Order; Per Curiam Opinion

SUMMARY *

M a licious P rosecution

The p anel r edesig nated the memorandum d i s p o s i t i o n f i led J une 15, 2015 as a per curiam o pinion; and a f f i rmed the d i s t rict c ourt’s summary judg ment and judg ment on t h e pleading s in favor of defendants Ray mond Mobrez and I liana L laneros, and F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal o f defendant L i s a B orodkin in Xcentric Ventures, L L C’s malicious prosecution action.

The panel held Xcentric could not prove an element of its malicious prosecution c laims under Califor nia law, that the underlying claims were broug ht or continued without f actual or leg a l probable cause.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b eenp rep ared b y

co urt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.X C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S V

. B O R

O D K I N 3

COUNSEL

David S. Gring as (arg

ued), Gring as L aw Office, PL L C, Phoenix , Ariz o na, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David Mey er (argu e d ), San Dieg o, California, for Defendants-Appellees Mobrez and L laneras.

Damion D. Robinson, V an V leck, T u rner, & Z aller, L L P, L os Ang eles, C a l i f

o r n i a ; L i s a B orodkin (arg

ued), Redondo B each, California, for Defendant-Appellee B orodkin.

ORDER
Ray mond Mobrez a

n d I liana L laneras’ Request for Reconsideration of Order Deny ing Request for Publication is G RANTED

. The Mem o r a n d um disposition filed J une 15, 2015, is redesig nated as a per curiam opinion.

L isa B o rodkin’s Request for J udicial Notice in c o nn e c tion with the r equest for reconsideration is D ENIED AS MOOT

.

OP INION

PER CURI AM:

Xcentric V e n tures appeals the district c ourt’s g rant o f summary judg ment and judg ment on the pleading s in favor o f defendants Mobrez and L laneras and Rule 12(b)(6) d ismissal of defendant B oro dkin in Xcentric’s malicious prosecution action. W e have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1291X C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S V

. B O R

O D K I N 4

a n d review d e novo. W e ag ree with the district court tha t Xcentric cannot prove a

n element of its malicious prosecution claims, that the underlying claims were b roug ht or continued without factual or leg al probable cause. We also d eny B orodkin’s motion for sanctions.

Xcentric claims that the underlying c laims lacked f actual probable cause because defendants Mobrez and L laneras lied about phone conve r s a t ions to support their underly ing

ex tortion claim. F a ctual probable cause is lack i n g i f the litig ant “relies upon facts w h i ch he has no reasonable cause to believe to be true.” Sangster v. Paetkau , 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 6 6 , 74 (Ct. App. 1998). However, summary judg ment is proper if any undisputed facts, o t h e r than the fabricated evidence, provide probable c ause for the claim. Rober t s v

. McAfee, Inc. , 660 F .3d 1156, 1165 (9th Cir. 2011); Sangster , 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 75–77. The underlying compl a i n t , first amended complaint, and summary judg ment orders establish that all o f the u nderlying claims in this case were su p p o rted by other undisputed written statements. Therefore, any dispute about whether Mobrez and L laneras lie d a b o ut the ph o n e c o nversations did not neg ate probable cause. See Roberts , 660 F .3d at 1165; Sangster , 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 75–77.

F or the same reason, Xcentric c annot state a p l ausible claim that B orodkin continued t h e lawsuit without f actual probable cause after learning that her clients had l i e d a b out the phone c a l l s

. The d istrict c ourt properly took judicial notice of the underlying court documents. Sprewell v. G olden State W arriors , 266 F. 3 d 979, 990 (9th Cir.), amended by 275 F .3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001). Those documents est ablish that B orodkin relied on written state m e nts, not her c lients’X C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S V

. B O R

O D K I N 5
orig inal statements about the p hone calls, when she continued to pursue the claims in California.

L eg al p robable cause ex ists if “any reasonable attorney would have thoug h t the claim tenable” o n the facts known to him. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarch e, 74 P.3d 737, 742 (Cal. 2003). L eg al probable cause ex ists even if the c laims

are “ex tremely unlikely ” to w in. I d. The standard is an objective questio n o f law to be decided by the court. S angster , 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 7 5. W e ag ree with the dis t r i ct
co u r t t hat the claims a sserted by Mobrez , L laneras, a nd Bo r o dkin in California were tenable based on the fac t s alleg ed in the underly

ing lawsuit.

The underlying att e mpted racketeering ex tortion claim alleg ed that Xcentric attempted to ex tort m oney b y encourag ing third parties to post neg ative revie w s , manipulating the posts to hig hlig ht neg ative re v i e ws and to further hig hlig h t the neg ative reviews if the businesses p osted rebuttals, a

nd then charg ing hig h fees to “turn the neg ative into a p o sitive.” The claim was ten a b l e b ecause a district court had previously held that s imilar alleg ations stated an
ex tortion claim ag ainst Xcentric. Hy Cite Corp. v badbusinessbur e a u

. c om, L.L.C. , 418 F

. Supp. 2d 1142, 1149–50 (D. Ariz

. 2005) (holding th at alleg a tions that Xcentric c reated and s o l icited false, defamatory complaints ag ainst businesses and then charg ed $50,000 a nd monthly f

ee of $1,500 to remove o r stop posting the complaints stated an
ex tortion claim); Sheldon Appel Co. v

. Albert & Oliker , 765 P.2d 4 9 8, 511–12 (Cal. 1989) ( a claim is tenable if “at least one prior California d e c ision” with “somewhat comparable” facts sug g ests available relief).X C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S V

. B O R

O D K I N 6

Nor were the racketeering or u n f a i r c o m p etition claims untenable because the business r u n by Mobrez and L laneras, Asia Economic I n sti t u t e, lacked revenue. Mobrez a nd L laneras sufficiently alleg ed and pro ved the requisite injury to business and property and economic loss, including that they paid a

n ex pert to mitig ate the damag ing posts and lost specific b usiness opportunities and c o ntracts b e c ause o f the neg ative posts. D i a z v. Gates , 4 20 F .3d 897, 900 ( 9 th Cir. 2005) (en b anc) (per curiam) (h o l d i n g that injury to a business or property interest includes harm that “amount[ s] to intentional interference w i t h contract and interference with pros p e c t ive b u siness relations”); Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct

. , 246 P.3d 877, 884 (Cal. 2011) (requiring s o m e sort o f lost money o r p r o p erty to establish actual economic loss for unfair competition claims).

Xcentric alleg ed and arg ued that the r e maining c laims lacked leg al probable cause b ecause it w as immune for third party posts pursuant to the Communications D e cency Act. The fraud and unfair business practices c l a i ms alleg ed that Xcentric manipulated and added co n t e n t to the posts; misrepresented its website as neutral, even thoug h it manipulated the posting s to favor its p rog ram members; a nd made other misrepresentations about the nature of its website. The claim was tenable b ecause the Communications D ecency Act does n ot immuniz e Xcentric for the c ontent it creates a nd posts. Fair Housing Coun cil v. Roommates.Com , L L C, 521 F .3d 1 157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2 008) (en banc). Moreover, at the time of the underlying c ase, at least one district court in California h ad indicated in dicta that the Commun i c a t ions Decency Act d oes not immuniz e misrepresentations made b y
a publisher about its publishing conduct. Levitt v. Y elp! Inc. , Nos. 10-1 3 2 1 & 10-2351, 2011 WL 5079526, at *9 (N.D.X C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S V

. B O R

O D K I N 7

Cal. O ct. 26, 2011) (dicta), aff’d on other grounds , 765 F .3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2014).

The r emaining derivativ e c l a ims asserted ag ainst Xcentric

were tenable b ecause Xcentric was a necessary party i f t h e plaintiffs could obtain an order for the third parties to remove the defamatory posts. B lockowicz v. W illiams , 675 F

. Supp. 2d 912, 915–16 (N.D. I ll. 2009) (refusing to order Xcentric to
remove defamatory posting s, even thoug h the plain t i f fs h ad obtained injunctive r elief, becau se Xcentric was not a party to the lawsuit).

F inally , the district court d id not abuse its discretion when it denied Xcentric’s r e q

uests to ex tend the case manag ement order deadline and to file a second amended complaint.

AF F IRMED.