Zamos v. Stroud

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 6/9/04 SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA JEROME ZAMOS et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) JAMES T. STROUD et al., ) ) Defendants and Respondents. ) ___________________________________ ) S118032 Ct.App. 2/5 B160484 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC 060622 MODIFICATION OF OPINION THE COURT: The opinion herein, appearing at 32 Cal.4th 958, is modified as follows: 1. In 32 Cal.4th at page 969, insert the phrase according to the evidence presented in opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion after Here, in the last sentence of the first full paragraph. The modified sentence would read: Here, according to the evidence presented in opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, defendants in the malicious prosecution action continued their prosecution of the underlying fraud action after learning it was baseless. 2. In 32 Cal.4th at page 970, delete the phrase primarily an issue of fact from the last sentence of footnote 9. Replace it with the phrase a question of law to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The modified sentence would read: The reasonableness of counsel s persistence is, of course, a question of law to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we have no occasion here to formulate more detailed rules. This modification does not affect the judgment.

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.