705 Fed.Appx. 623 (9th Cir. 2017), 16-15443, Vang v. Decker

Docket Nº:16-15443
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 623

705 Fed.Appx. 623 (9th Cir. 2017)

NHIA KAO VANG; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Steven DECKER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15443

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 6, 2017

Argued and Submitted November 14, 2017 San Francisco, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1.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.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Nhia Khao Vang, David Vang, Chue Hue Vang, Chao Xiong, Chong Yang, and Pang Her appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims for malicious prosecution. Their challenge is based in part on the court’s denial of their motion for pre-trial discovery. We affirm.

Page 624

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 court’s denial of discovery for abuse of discretion. Laub v. United States Dep’t 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 reading

FREE SIGN UP