Case Name: Danita CHRISTIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark A. LESTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-21
Citations: 684 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 15-55982
Parties: Danita CHRISTIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark A. LESTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 629–629

Head Matter:
Danita CHRISTIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark A. LESTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55982
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 21, 2017
Danita Christie, Pro Se
Jonathan Berres Cole, Esquire, Attorney, David B. Owen, Mark Schaeffer, Nemecek & Cole, LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Mark A. Lester, James G. Jones, Jones & Lester, LLP
Leah Capko, Pro Se
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Danita Christie appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing Christie's diversity action alleging malicious prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to strike under California's anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Policy ("anti-SLAPP") statute. Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 665 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted defendants' special motion under California's anti-SLAPP statute to strike Christie's malicious prosecution claims because Christie's claims were based on protected activity and Christie failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits, as Christie did, not show defendants lacked probable cause for the breach of trust claim regarding trust distributions. See Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1166, 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (outlining two-prong test for anti-SLAPP motion, and explaining that lack of probable cause is a necessary element of a malicious prosecution claim).
We reject as without merit Christie's contention that the district court should have dismissed the Montana state court order.
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,