Lugo v. Pixior, LLC, 101 Cal. App. 5th 511 (2024)

Saide Lugo sued her former employer Pixior and some of its employees for malicious prosecution after Pixior reported Lugo to the police for deleting “valuable computer files” after she “quit in a huff.” Lugo was arrested and criminally prosecuted but the prosecutor dismissed the matter after it was discovered that one of Pixior’s employee’s had lied under oath at a preliminary hearing. In response to Lugo’s malicious prosecution action, Pixior filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike on the ground that by helping to bring a criminal prosecution the company had engaged in protected activity under the applicable statute. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Lugo had failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits based on the fact that the police conducted an investigation that was independent of Pixior, which “shielded the Pixior parties from liability” for malicious prosecution.