In Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, the malicious prosecution plaintiff argued some of the statements in the underlying cross-complaint had been fabricated. The court found plaintiff's argument did not "address the question before us: that is, whether there are any undisputed facts objectively establishing, as a matter of law, that any reasonable attorney would have thought the underlying claims were tenable." ( Sangster v. Paetkau, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 167.) The court then found that although there was a dispute with respect to some of the facts, the facts which were undisputed were sufficient to establish that the underlying claims were tenable. ( Id. at pp. 167-168.)