activity each challenged claim in California

2025(Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 788 .) 9 DISCUSSION A. Prong One “The defendant’s first-step burden is to identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 884 (Wilson).) “A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “To determine whether a claim arises

2024“The defendant’s first-step burden is to identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 884 .) Because defendants did so here, the trial court erred in finding that Ross and Artists First did not meet their first-step burden as to a portion of the cause of action for breach of implied-in-fact contract.

2024(See § 425.16, subd. (e).) And comparing that protected activity against the complaint, it must also demonstrate that the activity supplies one or more elements of a plaintiff’s claims.” (Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 887 .) “At this stage, the question is only whether a defendant has made out a prima facie case that activity underlying a plaintiff’s claims is statutorily protected.” (Id. at p. 888.) “A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim.” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1062 .) “The defendant’s first-step burden is to identify the

2024Arising from Protected Activity “A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim.” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1062 .) “The defendant’s first-step burden is to identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.

2024A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading 6 to some different act for which liability is asserted.’” (Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 884 ; accord, Park, at p. 1060.) “‘[T]he mere fact that an action [or claim] was filed after protected activity took place does not mean the action [or claim] arose from that activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.’” (Park, at p. 1063; Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 621 .) “To determine whether a claim arises fr

2024A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’” (Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 884 ; accord, Park, at p. 1060.) “‘[T]he mere fact that an action [or claim] was filed after protected activity took place does not mean the action [or claim] arose from that activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.’” (Park, at p. 1063; see Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 621 [“a claim does not ‘arise from’ protecte

2023“In the anti-SLAPP context, the critical consideration is whether the cause of action is based on the defendant’s protected free speech or petitioning activity.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89 ; see also Park v. Nazari (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1099 , 1108 [movant must “ ‘identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute’ ”].) We must “respect the distinction between activities that form the basis for a claim and those that merely lead to the liability-creating activity or provide evidentiary support for t

2022A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 884 (Wilson); accord, Park, at p. 1060.) “To determine whether a claim arises from protected activity, courts must ‘consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.’” (Wilson, at p. 884; accord, Park, at p. 1063.) We review de novo

2021A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 884 (Wilson); accord, Park, at p. 1060.) “‘[T]he mere fact that an action [or claim] was filed after protected activity took place does not mean the action [or claim] arose from that activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.’” (Park, at pp. 1062-1063; see Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 621

2021A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 884 (Wilson); accord, Park, at p. 1060.) “‘[T]he mere fact that an action [or claim] was filed after protected activity took place does not mean the action [or claim] arose from that activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.’” (Park, at pp. 1062-1063; see Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 621

2024A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading 6 to some different act for which liability is asserted.’” (Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 884 ; accord, Park, at p. 1060.) “‘[T]he mere fact that an action [or claim] was filed after protected activity took place does not mean the action [or claim] arose from that activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.’” (Park, at p. 1063; Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 621 .) “To determine whether a claim arises fr

2024A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’” (Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 884 ; accord, Park, at p. 1060.) “‘[T]he mere fact that an action [or claim] was filed after protected activity took place does not mean the action [or claim] arose from that activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.’” (Park, at p. 1063; see Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 621 [“a claim does not ‘arise from’ protecte

2021A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’ [Citation.] To determine whether a claim arises from protected activity, courts must ‘consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.’ [Citation.] Courts then must evaluate whether the defendant has shown any of these actions fall within one or more of the four categories of ‘ “act[s]” ’

2021A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’ [Citation.] To determine whether a claim arises from protected activity, courts must ‘consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.’ [Citation.] Courts then must evaluate whether the defendant has shown any of these actions fall within one or more of the four categories of ‘ “act[s]” ’

2022(City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 80-81 ; Verceles v. Los Angeles United School Dist. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 776 , 784.) “A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim.” ( Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 1062-1063; accord, Bonni, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 1009.) Thus, “[t]he defendant’s first-step burden is to identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.

2022Howe Partners Inc. v. Mooradian (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 688 , 698 8 (Mooradian); see, e.g., City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 80-81 (City of Cotati).) “A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim.” (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1062-1063 (Park).) “The defendant’s first-step burden is to identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.

2025(Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 788 .) 9 DISCUSSION A. Prong One “The defendant’s first-step burden is to identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 884 (Wilson).) “A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “To determine whether a claim arises

2022If a plaintiff does not make that showing, a court will strike the claim.” (RGC Gaslamp, at p. 436.) “We apply a de novo review to a court’s rulings on whether the parties met their respective burdens.” (Murray v. Tran, at p. 25, citing Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 788 ; Wilson, at p. 884.) Appellant’s “first-step burden is to identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is protected by the anti- SLAPP statute.

2023Rogozienski, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1272 (Hylton).) Here, the 9th cause of action alleged that Dolch aided and abetted in taking away Ross’s testamentary rights “by virtue of” the April 2021 document and her appointment as successor trustee.

2022A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’ [Citation.] To determine whether a claim arises from protected activity, courts must ‘consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.’ [Citation.] Courts then must evaluate whether the defendant has shown any of these actions fall within one or more of the four categories of ‘“act[s]”’ pr

2022A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’ [Citation.] To determine whether a claim arises from protected activity, courts must ‘consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.’ [Citation.] Courts then must evaluate whether the defendant has shown any of these actions fall within one or more of the four categories of ‘“act[s]”’ pr

2022A ‘claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.’ [Citation.] To determine whether a claim arises from protected activity, courts must ‘consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.’ [Citation.] Courts then must evaluate whether the defendant has shown any of these actions fall within one or more of the four categories of ‘“act[s]”’ pr