Monday, April 13, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
L.A. Lawyer Loses Bid to Strike Malicious Prosecution Claim
Opinion Says Suit Alleging He Pursued Action Falsely Accusing Victim of Instigating Altercation Has Minimal Merit
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge properly denied an anti-SLAPP motion filed by a Los Angeles attorney and his spouse as to a malicious prosecution claim accusing them of pursuing a civil action against the plaintiff for battery while knowing that it was the lawyer’s wife who was the aggressor in the incident.
Thursday’s unpublished opinion acknowledges that the cause of action arose out of protected litigation activity. It declares, however, that the plaintiff, Katherine D. Keller, succeeded in establishing a probability of prevailing where the lawyer continued to pursue his wife’s claims after video surveillance, turned over to him as the attorney in a criminal prosecution, showed that his spouse was the only party to physically engage in the altercation over a Beverly Hills parking spot.
Justice John L. Segal, writing for the court, noted that the attorney, Robert H. Bisno, and his wife, Jeanette Bisno, argued that “[t]here was no credible evidence…to demonstrate Robert H. Bisno prosecuted the complaint…with ‘malice’ ” but declared:
“But there was. Keller alleged Jeanette and Robert had a specific…purpose in mind when they brought the underlying action—to ‘intimidate and harass’ Keller and to ‘…financially cripple [her] for speaking and continuing to participate in’ the criminal case against Jeanette….Keller submitted a declaration describing Robert’s conduct: ‘He sent people to my house and my places of work…’; ‘He would call me relentlessly and…[tell] me that he would “sue me for everything I have and ruin my life” ’…..That’s malicious conduct.”
However, Segal agreed with the Bisnos that the plaintiff had failed to meet her burden as to a claim filed under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, found at Civil Code §52.1, which provides for liability for the interference with a person’s constitutional rights by way of threat, saying that Keller’s allegations of potential violence were only made in a declaration accompanying her opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion and were not raised in the pleading itself.
Presiding Justice Gonzalo Martinez and Justice Natalie P. Stone joined in the opinion.
Parking Altercation
The underlying incident occurred on Dec. 12, 2018, when Jeanette Bisno attacked Keller in a parking garage, shoving the plaintiff and knocking coffee out of her hands while hurling accusations of stealing a spot. Police viewed video surveillance of the incident and cited Jeanette Bisno for battery.
Approximately one week later, Robert Bisno—who lists as his law and real estate office address that of his Mulholland Drive home—filed a complaint on behalf of his wife against various “Doe” parties for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. After Jeanette Bisno was arraigned on the criminal matter, the civil pleading was amended to substitute Keller as a defendant.
In June 2019, Keller cross-complained, alleging largely the same causes of action that were asserted against her. A few months later, Jeanette Bisno pled no contest to criminal assault charges.
After Jeanette Bisno admitted that Keller never “put…hands” on her during a deposition in the civil matter, the trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, at the plaintiff’s request, in January 2021. A trial on Keller’s causes of action in the cross-complaint was held in August 2023, and the jury found in her favor, awarding the cross-plaintiff $193,255 in compensatory and punitive damages.
That award was reduced to $10,355 after Div. Two of this district’s Court of Appeal reversed the judgment only as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding that the claim was based on a theory that Robert Bisno, a non-party to that litigation, had used his access to the legal system to harass and intimidate Keller.
On Feb. 20, 2024, Keller filed a complaint against both Bisnos, the Law Offices of Robert H. Bisno, as well as various business entities that the plaintiff alleged served as alter egos for the couple, asserting malicious prosecution claims relating to the earlier civil litigation and a violation of the Bane Act.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner on Dec. 12, 2024, denied the defendant’s special motion to strike the complaint, filed under California’s anti-SLAPP law found at Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, ruling that some of the alleged conduct was protected conduct, satisfying the first prong of the statute, but that Keller had demonstrated, under the second prong, that both claims had the requisite minimal merit to defeat the request.
Two-Step Process
Segal opined: “The trial court did not err in ruling Keller’s cause of action for malicious prosecution arose out of protected activity. ‘A complaint for malicious prosecution is necessarily based on protected speech and petitioning activity.’ ”
Addressing whether Keller had established a probability of prevailing, the jurist noted that a malicious prosecution claim may be pursued against the lawyer who prosecuted the earlier action as well as against the adverse party to that litigation and said:
“Keller demonstrated a probability she would prevail on her cause of action for malicious prosecution. It was undisputed Jeanette, represented by Robert, initiated the underlying tort action against Keller. It was also undisputed Keller obtained a favorable termination of the underlying action: Jeanette eventually dismissed it.”
He continued:
“Keller also demonstrated her claim Jeanette and Robert lacked probable cause to initiate and maintain the underlying action had minimal merit….In the underlying action Jeanette alleged Keller was the aggressor in the parking garage incident. Jeanette, however, subsequently admitted under oath Keller ‘never touched her,’ which meant Jeanette knew, from the outset…, she based her complaint against Keller on [false] allegations….Robert never denied knowing Jeanette was the aggressor, and in any event knew that fact when he received a copy of the video surveillance footage during the criminal proceedings….”
Inference of Malice
The jurist added:
“That both Jeanette and Robert knew Jeanette’s allegations against Keller in the underlying action were false strongly supported an inference they brought the underlying action with malice.”
As to the Bane Act claims, he wrote:
“Keller demonstrated the Bisno parties attempted to interfere with a right protected by the California Constitution. Keller alleged the Bisno parties, by maliciously prosecuting the underlying action, attempted to interfere with her rights under the Victims’ Bill of Rights of 2008 (Marsy’s Law).”
However, he concluded:
“Keller did not allege Robert (or anyone else) threatened violence against her or her property. She alleged Robert’s threats ‘caused [her] to fear for her safety, the safety of her assets, and her ability to exercise her victim’s rights as they related to the criminal prosecution of’ Jeanette. But while she may have feared violence might occur, she did not allege Robert threatened violence toward her.”
Segal declared: “The trial court is directed to enter a new order denying the special motion to strike Keller’s malicious prosecution cause of action and granting the motion to strike the cause of action for violation of the Bane Act.”
The case is Keller v. Bisno, B344298.
Bisno represented himself and the remaining defendants on appeal. Acting for the plaintiff were Anthony Willoughby and Anthony Willoughby II of the Culver City-based Willoughby & Associates.
Both sets of attorneys were accused of “incivility” in the earlier appellate opinion overturning the intentional infliction of emotion distress claim. In that decision, Presiding Justice Elwood Lui of Div. Two described the case as “overzealous litigation” over “a dispute over a parking space that unfortunately made its way into a courtroom.”
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company