King Brett Lauter v. Irina Anoufrieva , 550 F. App'x 473 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KING BRETT LAUTER, No. 12-55729
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-06811-JVS-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
IRINA ANOUFRIEVA; LAUREN
LIEBERT; JONATHAN C.S. COX;
DEBRA COX, Representative of the
Estate of Jonathan C.S. Cox; COX,
PADMORE, SKOLNIK &
SHAKARCHY, LLP; ELLEN BIDISCO,
Erroneously Sued As Ellen Bodisco;
Erroneously Sued As Ellen Miller; JACOB
S. SHAKARCHY; GERALD PADMORE;
STEVEN D. SKOLNIK; DEBORAH H.
SROUR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted December 2, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
King Brett Lauter appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of his ex-wife, Irina Anoufrieva, her former employer, the law firm of Cox,
Padmore, Skolnik & Shakarchy LLP (“the Cox firm”), and several of its
employees. The firm alerted police to Lauter’s presence outside the firm offices,
leading the district attorney to bring charges against Lauter for violating a
restraining order protecting Anoufrieva. Lauter claims this constituted malicious
prosecution because he was in fact attempting to serve members of the Cox firm
with subpoenas, and this was conduct that the restraining order did not bar. He
makes no showing, however, that defendants knew that this was his purpose, or
that they concealed it from the police. He therefore cannot demonstrate malice or
false reporting to police. See Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr. v. Superior Court, 253
Cal. Rptr. 561, 563 (Ct. App. 1988).
Lauter also contends that defendants invaded his privacy when they helped
Anoufrieva move and forwarded her mail. These actions, however, did not affect
Lauter’s privacy. Lauter has also failed to show any genuine dispute of fact
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
regarding his RICO, negligence, and California Business and Professions Code
claims. None have merit.
AFFIRMED.
3