stricken claim in California

2026Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 ; see also Bonni v. St.

2025Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; accord, Timothy W. v. Julie W. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 648 , 661.) Rosen seeks a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to the Rosen citation.

2021Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 .) Even if the defendant makes the required showing that the cause of action arises from protected speech or petitioning activity, the motion should be denied and the cause of action allowed to proceed if the plaintiff (here the counter-plaintiff) demonstrates “there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)

2017Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing." ( Id. at p. 396, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 .) "Only a [claim] that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute." ( Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 89, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530 , 52 P.3d 703 , original italics.) II First Prong: Claims Arising fro

2020(See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 314 .) If the court finds that the defendant has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1); see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562 , 567–568.) The second step of the anti- SLAPP analysis consists of "a 'summary-judgment-like procedure.' " (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 .) At this stage, "[t]he court does not weigh evidence or resolve conflicting factual claims.

2019(See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 , 314, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 .) If the court finds that the defendant has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." ( § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) ; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562 , 567-568, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 .) "Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subjec

2019(See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 , 314, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 .) If the court finds that the defendant has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." ( § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) ; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562 , 567-568, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 .) "Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subjec

2019(See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 , 314, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 .) If the court finds that the defendant has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." ( § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) ; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562 , 567-568, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 .) "Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subjec

2016Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 [ 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 ] (Bared).) To make a showing under the first prong, the defendant need not show that the actions it is alleged to have taken were protected as a matter of law, but need only establish a prima facie case that its alleged actions fell into one of the categories listed in section 425.16, subdivision (e). 8 (See Flat

2016Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 [ 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 ] (Bared).) To make a showing under the first prong, the defendant need not show that the actions it is alleged to have taken were protected as a matter of law, but need only establish a prima facie case that its alleged actions fell into one of the categories listed in section 425.16, subdivision (e). 8 (See Flat

2026(Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1067 (Park).) “We exercise independent judgment in determining whether, based on our own review of the record, the challenged claims arise from protected activity.” (Ibid.) Considering the pleadings and the affidavits concerning the facts, we accept the plaintiffs’ submissions as true “and consider only whether any contrary evidence from the defendant establishes its entitlement to prevail as a matter of law. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) B.

2022(Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1067 (Park).) B.

2021Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 .) “To make a showing under the first prong, the defendant need not show that the actions it is alleged to have taken were protected as a matter of law, but need only establish a prima facie case that its alleged actions fell into one of the categories listed in section 425.16, subdivision (e).” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal

2021Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 .) “To make a showing under the first prong, the defendant need not show that the actions it is alleged to have taken were protected as a matter of law, but need only establish a prima facie case that its alleged actions fell into one of the categories listed in section 425.16, subdivision (e).” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal

2016Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 [ 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 ] (Bared).) To make a showing under the first prong, the defendant need not show that the actions it is alleged to have taken were protected as a matter of law, but need only establish a prima facie case that its alleged actions fell into one of the categories listed in section 425.16, subdivision (e). 8 (See Flat

2016Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 [ 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 ] (Bared).) To make a showing under the first prong, the defendant need not show that the actions it is alleged to have taken were protected as a matter of law, but need only establish a prima facie case that its alleged actions fell into one of the categories listed in section 425.16, subdivision (e). 8 (See Flat

2017Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing." ( Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376 , 396, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 .) We review rulings on anti-SLAPP motions de novo. ( Freeman v. Schack (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 719 , 727, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 .) We also consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits, " ' "accept[ing] as true the *254 evidence favorable to the plaintiff [citation] and evaluat[ing] the defendant's

2017Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing." ( Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376 , 396, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 .) We review rulings on anti-SLAPP motions de novo. ( Freeman v. Schack (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 719 , 727, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 .) We also consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits, " ' "accept[ing] as true the *254 evidence favorable to the plaintiff [citation] and evaluat[ing] the defendant's

2019Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing." ( Baral , supra , 1 Cal.5th at p. 396, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 .) The plaintiff must demonstrate this probability of success with admissible evidence. ( Sheley v. Harrop (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1147 , 1162, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 ( Sheley ).) "The plaintiff may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence. [Citation

2019Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing." ( Baral , supra , 1 Cal.5th at p. 396, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 .) The plaintiff must demonstrate this probability of success with admissible evidence. ( Sheley v. Harrop (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1147 , 1162, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 ( Sheley ).) "The plaintiff may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence. [Citation

2016Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 [ 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 ] (Bared).) To make a showing under the first prong, the defendant need not show that the actions it is alleged to have taken were protected as a matter of law, but need only establish a prima facie case that its alleged actions fell into one of the categories listed in section 425.16, subdivision (e). 8 (See Flat

2016Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 [ 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 376 P.3d 604 ] (Bared).) To make a showing under the first prong, the defendant need not show that the actions it is alleged to have taken were protected as a matter of law, but need only establish a prima facie case that its alleged actions fell into one of the categories listed in section 425.16, subdivision (e). 8 (See Flat

2025“Declaratory relief is available to a party ‘who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another . . . .’” (Monterey Coastkeeper v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1 , 13 (Monterey Coastkeeper); see § 1060 [a person who desires “a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another” may obtain declaratory relief “in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties”].) “A complaint for declaratory relief is legally sufficient if it sets forth facts showing the existence o

2025(See Scheenstra v. California Dairies, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 370, 393, fn. 16 [courts determine the objective meaning of a contract’s language to protect the parties’ objectively reasonable expectations].) Whether plaintiff has standing to pursue claims is not a dispute “that [plaintiff] ha[s] against Dollar General.” Rather, the issue is a dispute that plaintiff’s principal, the LWDA, “ha[s] against Dollar General.” (See Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 679 , 693 [plaintiff cannot bind the state to arbitrate the LWDA’s Type O/nonindividual PAGA claim

2025“Declaratory relief is available to a party ‘who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another . . . .’” (Monterey Coastkeeper v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1 , 13 (Monterey Coastkeeper); see § 1060 [a person who desires “a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another” may obtain declaratory relief “in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties”].) “A complaint for declaratory relief is legally sufficient if it sets forth facts showing the existence o

2021Allegations of protected activity supporting the stricken claim are eliminated from the complaint, unless they also support a distinct claim on which the plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; see Kettler v. Gould, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 601 .) We review de novo an order granting or denying a special motion to strike under section 425.16.

2019(See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 , 314, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 .) If the court finds that the defendant has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." ( § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) ; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562 , 567-568, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 .) "Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subjec

2019(See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 , 314, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 .) If the court finds that the defendant has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." ( § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) ; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562 , 567-568, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 .) "Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subjec

2019(See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 , 314, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 .) If the court finds that the defendant has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." ( § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) ; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562 , 567-568, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 .) "Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subjec

2019(See Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 , 314, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 .) If the court finds that the defendant has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." ( § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) ; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562 , 567-568, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 .) "Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subjec