Danita CHRISTIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark A. LESTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 684 F. App'x 629

MEMORANDUM Danita Christie appeals pro se from the district ■ court’s judgment dismissing Christie’s diversity action alleging malicious prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to strike under California’s anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Policy (“anti-SLAPP”) statute. Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. County of San Diego, 665 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted defendants’ special motion under California’s anti-SLAPP statute to strike Christie’s malicious prosecution claims because Christie’s claims were based on protected activity and Christie failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits, as Christie did, not show defendants lacked probable cause for the breach of trust claim regarding trust distributions. See Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1166, 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (outlining two-prong test for anti-SLAPP motion, and explaining that lack of probable cause is a necessary element of a malicious prosecution claim).

We reject as without merit Christie’s contention that the district court should have dismissed the Montana state court order. All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,