
    TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER OF SANTA ANA, INC., a California Corporation; International Broadcasting, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joseph McVEIGH, an individual, Defendant, and Tymothy S. Macleod, an individual, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-55198.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 12, 2016.
    Filed Feb. 17, 2016.
    Douglas L. Mahaffey, Mahaffey Law Group, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    
      Theodore W. Frank, David B. Parker, Parker Shumaker Mills, LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Trinity Christian Center and International Broadcasting appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing their malicious prosecution action against Tymothy MacLeod. We affirm.

The underlying action upon which the malicious prosecution action was predicated was terminated in favor of Trinity upon voluntary dismissal. See MacDonald v. Joslyn, 275 Cal.App.2d 282, 289, 79 Cal. Rptr. 707 (1969). The resolution of the attorneys’ fees issue was irrelevant to whether the voluntary dismissal was a favorable termination on the merits.. The malicious prosecution action in this case therefore accrued, if at all, on May 7, 2012. Under California law, a one-year statute of limitations applies to malicious prosecution actions, Lee v. Hanley, 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1236, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 536, 354 P.3d 334 (2015), and that one-year statute of limitations expired in this action on May 7, 2013. The complaint in this action — filed on August 9, 2013 — was therefore untimely.

The suit was not a SLAPPback action under Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 425.18 because the underlying action was voluntarily dismissed rather than “dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike.” Therefore, thé district court properly awarded attorneys’ fees to MacLeod. We affirm the district court’s final judgment for the reasons set forth in its October 31, 2013 and January 21, 2014 orders.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir, R. 36-3.
     