TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER V. TYMOTHY MACLEOD, No. 14-55198 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER OF SANTA ANA, INC., a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, No. 14-55198 D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01334-DOCRNB MEMORANDUM* v. JOSEPH MCVEIGH, an individual, Defendant, And TYMOTHY S. MACLEOD, an individual, Defendant - Appellee. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
