special motion to strike analysis in California

2024(Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1073 .) Accordingly, we need not reach the second step of the special motion to strike inquiry.

2024Yaghoobia “has not carried [his] burden of showing ‘the defendant’s conduct by which plaintiff claims to have been injured falls within one of the four categories described in subdivision (e).’ [Citation.]” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1073 .) Accordingly, we need not reach the second step of the special motion to strike inquiry. 5 DISPOSITION The trial court order denying Yaghoobia’s special motion to strike is affirmed.

2023(See Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 90 .) B We move to the second prong of the special motion to strike analysis, in which the movant carries the burden of establishing a probability of success in its claims. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1); Woodhill, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 630.) Cordoba must demonstrate its complaint is legally sufficient and supported by a prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if all its evidence is credited.

2016(Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1654 .) With respect to the second prong in the special motion to strike analysis, "in order to establish the requisite probability of prevailing (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), the plaintiff need only have ' "stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim." ' [Citations.] 'Put another way, the plaintiff "must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited." '

2026(Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 468 .) We elect to do so here.

2026“The tort of defamation ‘involves (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.’ [Citation.]” (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720 .) Additionally, “[t]o prevail on a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff who is a public figure must prove the defendant intentionally published a false statement of fact with actual malice,” i.e., with knowledge or 6 Accordingly, we need not address plaintiffs’ request that we remand for reconsideration of plaintiffs’ discovery motion, which is co

2023(Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 .) Cordoba cannot satisfy this burden, because each of its three causes of action fails to state a valid claim.

2016Rather, [we] accept as true the evidence favorable to the plaintiff [citation] and evaluate the defendant's evidence only to determine if it has defeated that submitted by the plaintiff as a matter of law.' " (Soukup, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 269, fn. 3 .) Further, "[i]f the trial court's decision is correct on any theory, we must affirm the [anti-SLAPP] order." (San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction, Inc. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 611, 622 .) B.

2016(Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1654 .) With respect to the second prong in the special motion to strike analysis, "in order to establish the requisite probability of prevailing (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), the plaintiff need only have ' "stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim." ' [Citations.] 'Put another way, the plaintiff "must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited." '

2016(Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1654 .) With respect to the second prong in the special motion to strike analysis, "in order to establish the requisite probability of prevailing (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), the plaintiff need only have ' "stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim." ' [Citations.] 'Put another way, the plaintiff "must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited." '

2016(Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1654 .) With respect to the second prong in the special motion to strike analysis, "in order to establish the requisite probability of prevailing (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), the plaintiff need only have ' "stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim." ' [Citations.] 'Put another way, the plaintiff "must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited." '