Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sonja Zinke v. Philipp Goebels et al

December 27, 2010

SONJA ZINKE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
PHILIPP GOEBELS ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.



APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gloria Trask, Judge. Reversed with directions. (Super.Ct.No. RIC541258)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richli J.

Zinke v. Goebels CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

Philipp Goebels, through his attorney, Hugo Wm. Anderson, Jr., (collectively defendants), filed the underlying nuisance action against Sonja Zinke. After Zinke prevailed in that action, she filed this malicious prosecution action against defendants. Defendants filed special motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (SLAPP motions), which were denied.

Defendants contend that the trial court erred and that the motions should have been granted because:

1. Zinke's malicious prosecution complaint is not legally sufficient.

2. Zinke has no admissible evidence of lack of probable cause.

3. The default judgment that was entered against Zinke in the underlying action establishes probable cause (even though it was later vacated).

4. Zinke is bound by her admission in the underlying action that she was conducting horse training, boarding, and breeding operations on her property (even though she denied that these operations constituted a nuisance).

5. As to Attorney Anderson, Zinke has no admissible evidence of malice.

6. As to Attorney Anderson, Zinke failed to comply with Civil Code section 1714.10, which prohibits the assertion of a cause of action against an attorney for civil conspiracy ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.