Krupp v. Lombard Street 4/5/02 CA4/3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: G027399

Case Date: 07/11/2002

Preview:Filed 4/5/02

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

MARSHALL KRUPP, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 817971) LOMBARD STREET EQUITIES INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents. OPINION G027399 (Consolidated with G027731)

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Sheldon I. Lodmer, Sheldon I. Lodmer and Robert D. Lipscomb for Plaintiff and Appellant. Stewart, Dimmick, Marshall & Zell, Kellie S. Christianson and Scott P. Cranny for Defendants and Respondents Lombard Street Equities, Inc., Ray Malzo, Ronald Keilwitz, George A. Harrelson, Jr., and William Taylor. Richard M. Henry, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

In consolidated appeals, plaintiff Marshall Krupp challenges the trial court's judgment dismissing his action after sustaining demurrers without leave to amend in favor of defendants Lombard Street Equities, Inc. and several of its employees and/or officers, Ray Malzo, Ronald Keilwitz, George A. Harrelson, Jr., and William Taylor (collectively Lombard; G027731), and Richard M. Henry, Lombard's attorney (G027399). Plaintiff argues he had adequately alleged the elements for malicious prosecution against Lombard, and the court erroneously concluded Lombard and Henry were protected by the litigation privilege. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

According to plaintiff's complaint, Lombard Street Equities, Inc. operates a motorcycle dealership under the name Orange County Harley-Davidson. Plaintiff purchased a motorcycle from Lombard and, dissatisfied with its services and repairs, returned to the dealership. Because "[d]efendants . . . did not like the fact that [p]laintiff was standing up to each of them in protecting his rights[,] . . . [they] chose to have [him] arrested . . . ." Plaintiff was arrested and charged with violating Penal Code 602.1, subdivision (a), obstructing or intimidating a business operator or its customers. The criminal proceeding was dismissed. Soon after, Henry, Lombard's attorney, sent a letter to plaintiff formally notifying him that he was barred from entering the dealership based on a valid order entered by the court after plaintiff was "prosecuted for violating Penal Code,

Download Krupp v. Lombard Street 4/5/02 CA4/3.pdf