TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER OF SANTA ANA, INC., a California Corporation v. Joseph Mcveigh, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER OF
SANTA ANA, INC., a California
Corporation; INTERNATIONAL
BROADCASTING, INC., a California
Corporation,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
JOSEPH MCVEIGH, an individual,
Defendant,
And
TYMOTHY S. MACLEOD, an individual,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-55198
D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01334-DOC-
RNB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 12, 2016
Pasadena, California
FILED
FEB 17 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Trinity Christian Center and International Broadcasting appeal the district
court’s judgment dismissing their malicious prosecution action against Tymothy
MacLeod. We affirm.
The underlying action upon which the malicious prosecution action was
predicated was terminated in favor of Trinity upon voluntary dismissal. See
MacDonald v. Joslyn, 275 Cal. App. 2d 282, 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969). The
resolution of the attorneys’ fees issue was irrelevant to whether the voluntary
dismissal was a favorable termination on the merits. The malicious prosecution
action in this case therefore accrued, if at all, on May 7, 2012. Under California
law, a one-year statute of limitations applies to malicious prosecution actions, Lee
v. Hanley, 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1236 (Cal. 2015), and that one-year statute of
limitations expired in this action on May 7, 2013. The complaint in this
action—filed on August 9, 2013—was therefore untimely.
The suit was not a SLAPPback action under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.18
because the underlying action was voluntarily dismissed rather than “dismissed
pursuant to a special motion to strike.” Therefore, the district court properly
2

-- 2 of 3 --

awarded attorneys’ fees to MacLeod. We affirm the district court’s final judgment
for the reasons set forth in its October 31, 2013 and January 21, 2014 orders.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --