
    King Brett LAUTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
    
      No. 12-55729.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 2, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 20, 2013.
    Michael Stuart Brown, California Lawyers Group, LLP, Encino, CA, Michael Eugene Reznick, Law Offices of Michael E. Reznick, Oak Park, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Irina Anoufrieva, San Francisco, CA pro se.
    Shane P. Criqui, Marc J. Schneider, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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, 206 Cal.App.3d 414, 253 Cal.Rptr. 561, 563 (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 regarding his RICO, negligence, and California Business and Professions Code claims. None have merit.

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