Dorian Arevalo v. JOse Molina, et al.

(b)(1).) "[T]he probable cause element calls on the trial court to make an objective determination of the 'reasonableness' of the defendant's conduct, i.e., to determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable. The resolution of that question of law calls for the application of an objective standard to the facts on which the defendant acted." (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 878.)

Plaintiff presents no evidence tending to establish that Defendants lacked probable cause in pursuing the underlying action against Plaintiff. A contention that the testimony elicited at trial undercut the Defendants' claims and resulted in a complete victory for the defense is not itself evidence of lack of probable cause, because it does not bear upon the objective reasonableness of Defendants' actions. The court's Statement of Decision also does not prove that Defendants were objectively unreasonable in prosecuting or maintaining the action against Plaintiff.

More importantly, Plaintiff's opposition entirely fails to address the third element of malicious prosecution: malice. Plaintiff therefore fails to present a prima facie showing of facts sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment, and thus has not met his burden to establish a probability that Plaintiff will prevail on his claim for malicious prosecution.

For the reasons set forth above, the court grants Defendants' special motion to strike.

ORDER

The court GRANTS defendants Richard Meng and Vivian Meng's special motion to strike the Complaint. The court orders that the Complaint filed by plaintiff Michael Verdugo is stricken as to defendants Richard Meng and Vivian Meng without leave to amend pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The court orders that defendants Richard Meng and Vivian Meng are dismissed from this action. The court orders that defendants Richard and Vivian Meng are entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs in connection with this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Reasonable fees and costs shall be determined by a procedurally proper and regularly-noticed motion. The court orders defendants Richard Meng and Vivian Meng to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 25, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court

Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Dorian Arevalo; Plaintiffs, vs. JOse Molina, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | August 25, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: Order to Show Cause Why the Court SHould NOt Dismiss This Action Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360 | Order to Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Dismiss This Action Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 583.310 and 583.360

No response to this Order to Show Cause was filed.

DISCUSSION

On June 2, 2026, the court, on its own motion, set an Order to Show Cause why the court should not dismiss this action because it has not been brought to trial within five years after the action was commenced against the defendant, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360, for hearing on August 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 513. (June 2, 2026 order, p. 3:5-9.) The court ordered that any response to the Order to Show Cause shall be filed and served no later than nine court days before the hearing. (June 2, 2026 order, p. 3:9-10.) No response to the Order to Show Cause has been filed by any party.

"An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.310.) "An action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in this article." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.360, subd. (a).) "The requirements of this article are mandatory and are not subject to extension, excuse, or exception except as expressly provided by statute." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.360, subd. (b).)

The five-year deadline to bring an action to trial was extended by six months for civil cases filed on or before April 6, 2020. (Cal. Rules of Court, Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, rule 10, subd. (a). This action was filed on April 26, 2018.

On May 9, 2019, Defendant Jose Molina ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings and attached a notice of removal of action to the United States District Court that he had also filed on May 9, 2019. On May 22, 2019, the court vacated the trial and Final Status Conference set for that date. On May 22, 2019, the order of remand issued by the United States District Court was filed with this court. Thus, this court was divested of jurisdiction by Defendant's removal to federal court for 13 days (i.e., from May 9 to May 22, 2019).

On August 28, 2019, the court's minute order states: "Review of case records reflects that there is no remand of this case from Federal Court. The entire action is determined to be disposed of and completed." Thereafter, the parties did not take any action in this case or call to the court's attention that the United States District Court had issued an order of remand until Defendant filed his motion to release interpled funds of $18,862.00 held in court trust account on December 9, 2025. Thus, no party took any action or filed any documents with this court in this case for over six years after the case was remanded to this court.

The deadline to bring this action to trial was Sunday November 6, 2023, which is five years, six months, and thirteen days from April 26, 2018, extended to Monday, November 7, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 12 [extension of time to act when last day falls on a holiday].)

Although the court pointed out in its June 2, 2026 order that the court is required to dismiss this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360, unless the parties stipulate to extend the time within which the action must be brought to trial pursuant to section 583.330, the parties have not filed such a stipulation. None of the parties has filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. Thus, the court is required to dismiss this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360.

ORDER

The court, on its own motion, orders that this action is dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 583.310 and 583.360. The court directs the clerk to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 25, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->