705 Fed.Appx. 623 (9th Cir. 2017), 16-15443, Vang v. Decker
|Citation:||705 Fed.Appx. 623|
|Party Name:||NHIA KAO VANG; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Steven DECKER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Herman Franck, Attorney, Franck & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Rebecca Ann Falk, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||December 06, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted November 14, 2017 San Francisco, California
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01226-MCE-AC
Herman Franck, Attorney, Franck & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Rebecca Ann Falk, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,[*] District Judge.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Nhia Khao Vang, David Vang, Chue Hue Vang, Chao Xiong, Chong Yang, and Pang Her appeal the district courts dismissal of their claims for malicious prosecution. Their challenge is based in part on the courts denial of their motion for pre-trial discovery. We affirm.
Because the district court relied in its decision upon the declaration by U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner, we treat the dismissal as a grant of summary judgment subject to de novo review by us. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d); Szajer v. City of L.A., 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the district courts denial of discovery for abuse of discretion. Laub v. United States Dept of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).
The district court properly dismissed the malicious prosecution claims. To succeed on their malicious prosecution claims, Plaintiffs were required to establish, among other things, that the underlying criminal action legally terminated in their favor. StaffPro, Inc. v. Elite Show Servs., Inc., 136 Cal.App.4th 1392, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 687 (2006). To satisfy this element, the entire action must have terminated in their favor. See Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP