In Matossian v. Fahmie (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 128, the plaintiffs had applied to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to transfer their "on sale" liquor license to new premises. The defendants protested to the department, complaining that granting the transfer would result in or add to undue concentration of licenses, a recognized ground for denial of an application for transfer. The department held a hearing, considered the protests and then granted the plaintiffs' application for transfer of the license. Plaintiffs then filed suit for $600,000 damages and costs in three counts sounding in malicious prosecution and tortious interference with business, abuse of process, and conspiracy to prevent competition. The gist of the complaint was that the defendants conspired to and did file "'meritless protests'" for the single purpose of destroying competition and thereby gaining a business advantage for themselves. ( Id. , at pp. 134-135.) In the trial court the action was dismissed. On appeal the judgment was affirmed. The court stated its holding as follows: "We are persuaded . . . that where, as here, a statute expressly invites or allows interested persons to protest, or give their views or opinions concerning, proposed or requested governmental administrative action, such persons singly or in combination have a lawful right to do so; in such a case the law will not permit judicial or other inquiry into the persons' purpose or motivation. As said in Paskle v. Williams (1931) 214 Cal. 482, 487 6 P.2d 505, 'the motive, even if malicious, of defendants is unimportant if legal ground existed upon which to predicate' their protests . . . . " (101 Cal.App.3d at p. 137.)