merit claim in California

2026(Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 .) In the second step, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that each challenged claim based on protected activity is legally sufficient and factually substantiated.” (Ibid.) “[A] plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’ [Citations.]” (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 940 .) On appeal, our review of the trial court’s decision that the anti-SLAPP motio

2026First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 (Baral).) Section 425.16, subdivision (e) describes categories of protected activities “‘in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech,’” including “(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in conne

2024(Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 (Park).) If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.

2024First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16, and if the defendant makes this showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success. [Citation.] On appeal, we review the trial court’s ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion de novo.” (Wittenberg, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at pp. 311–312.) A “claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim. . . . [T]he focus is on determining what ‘the defendant’s activity [is] that gives r

2026(Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 .) In the second step, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that each challenged claim based on protected activity is legally sufficient and factually substantiated.” (Ibid.) “[A] plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’ [Citations.]” (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 940 .) On appeal, our review of the trial court’s decision that the anti-SLAPP motio

2026(City of Montebello, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 420 ; Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 88-89; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 713-715 .) Although the plaintiff’s burden is not high, the plaintiff may not rely solely on the complaint, even if verified, but must present competent and admissible evidence to demonstrate the merit of the claim. ( Sweetwater, supra, 6 Cal.5th 6 at p. 940, 946; Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35 , 43 (Wisner); Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768

2026(Byers v. Cathcart (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 805, 812 [“Legitimacy of purpose negates harassment.”].) Next, the declarations on which Ortiz relies lack competent, admissible evidence to support his allegations. “[A] plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’ [Citations.]” (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 788 .) Many of Ortiz’s allegations as it pertained to Saenz’s alleged threats were vague and conclusory, and not evidence.

2026(See Issa v. Applegate (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 689, 701 (Issa); Cruz v. City of Culver City (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 239, 250 .) “As to the second step, a plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’” (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 788 ; § 425.16, subd. (b)(2) [“In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.”].) “‘We h

2021“First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 ; accord, Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 (Park).) “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

2021“First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 .) “If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Ibid.) “ ‘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, subject to being stricken under the statute.’ ” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 81

2026(Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, at p. 175 .) 13 We discuss State Personnel Bd. v. Department of Personnel Admin. at length later in this opinion. 20 The Pacific Legal Foundation court rejected the petitioners’ facial challenge, stating, “PERB and the [SPB] are not in competition with each other; rather, each agency was established to serve a different, but not inconsistent purpose.” (Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 197 .) The court elaborated: “The [SPB] was granted jurisdiction to review disciplinary actions of civil service employees in order to protect civil service emplo

2026(Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, at p. 175 .) 13 We discuss State Personnel Bd. v. Department of Personnel Admin. at length later in this opinion. 20 The Pacific Legal Foundation court rejected the petitioners’ facial challenge, stating, “PERB and the [SPB] are not in competition with each other; rather, each agency was established to serve a different, but not inconsistent purpose.” (Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 197 .) The court elaborated: “The [SPB] was granted jurisdiction to review disciplinary actions of civil service employees in order to protect civil service emplo

2026(Baral, at p. 384.) “First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 .) Second, if the defendant succeeds, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 ; see also 6 Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 61 .) The court undertakes “a ‘summary-judgment-like procedure’ ” in which “[i]ts inquiry is limited to whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient clai

2025(Baral, at p. 384.) “First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16.”5 (Ibid.) If the defendant succeeds in that first step, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 ; see also Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 61 .) At that step, a court undertakes “a ‘summary- judgment-like procedure’ ” in which “[i]ts inquiry is limited to whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and m

2026(City of Montebello, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 420 ; Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 88-89; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 713-715 .) Although the plaintiff’s burden is not high, the plaintiff may not rely solely on the complaint, even if verified, but must present competent and admissible evidence to demonstrate the merit of the claim. ( Sweetwater, supra, 6 Cal.5th 6 at p. 940, 946; Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35 , 43 (Wisner); Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768

2026(City of Montebello, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 420 ; Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 88-89; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 713-715 .) Although the plaintiff’s burden is not high, the plaintiff may not rely solely on the complaint, even if verified, but must present competent and admissible evidence to demonstrate the merit of the claim. ( Sweetwater, supra, 6 Cal.5th 6 at p. 940, 946; Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35 , 43 (Wisner); Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768

2025It accepts the plaintiff’s evidence as true, and evaluates the defendant’s showing only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law.” ’ ” (Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 891 .) But “a plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’ ” (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 940 .) If the plaintiff cannot make the required showing, the court will strike the claim.

2025It accepts the plaintiff’s evidence as true, and evaluates the defendant’s showing only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law.” ’ ” (Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 891 .) But “a plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’ ” (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 940 .) If the plaintiff cannot make the required showing, the court will strike the claim.

2021(Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 381 ; Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1061 .) “First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral, at pp. 384- 385.) “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 ; accord, City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 78 .) “‘[T]he foc

2017(City of Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 80-81; Trilogy at Glen Ivy Maintenance Assn. v. Shea Homes, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 361, 367 .) If the defendant makes the required showing at the first step, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral, at p. 384.) We review de novo an order granting or denying a special motion to strike under section 425.16.

2026Moussazadeh Did Not Show a Probability of Success Because the Litigation Privilege Bars Its Causes of Action At the second step of the analysis under section 425.16 “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt 17 (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 .) “The litigation privilege is ‘relevant to the second step in the [section 425.16] analysis in that it may present a substantive defense a plaintiff must overcome to demonstrate a probability of prevailing.’” (Contreras v. Dowling (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 394, 415 ; see Fl

2022(Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 317 .) “First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 (Baral).) Alternatively, if the defendant fails to demonstrate that any of the challenged claims for relief arise from protected activity, the court properly denies the motion to strike without addressing the probability o

2026VII, §§ 2, 3, subd. (a)) and for an executive officer to administer the statutes under the SPB’s rules (id., §§ 2, subd. (c), 3, subd. (b)).” (California State Personnel Bd. v. California State Employees Assn., Local 1000, SEIU, AFL-CIO (2005) 36 Cal.4th 758, 764-765 , fn. omitted.) We are concerned here with article VII, section 3, subdivision (a), which provides: “The board shall enforce the civil service statutes and, by majority vote of all its members, shall prescribe probationary periods and classifications, adopt other rules authorized by statute, and review disciplinary actions.” (Ital

2026(Cf. California State Personnel Bd. v. California State Employees Assn., Local 1000, SEIU, AFL-CIO, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 763-764, 772, 775-776 [the Department of Personnel Administration and California State Employees Association were properly enjoined from implementing collective bargaining agreements that relied on “post and bid” programs for hiring and promotion, in violation of the merit principle]; State Personnel Bd. v. Department of Personnel Admin., supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 516, 519 [affirming grant of writ petitions prohibiting enforcement of MOUs that allowed civil service employ

2026(Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 437-438 [summarizing Pacific Legal Foundation’s discussion of PERB and the SPB and noting “the two jurisdictions overlap in certain areas, such as where a disciplinary action is alleged to have been motivated by antiunion animus”].) The court clarified that Pacific Legal Foundation considered two types of potential conflicts: (1) where “an action by another agency actually encroaches on the merit principle, as where hiring or promotion is determined on the basis of political partisanship,” and (2) “where two agencies arrive at conflictin

2026(Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 437-438 [summarizing Pacific Legal Foundation’s discussion of PERB and the SPB and noting “the two jurisdictions overlap in certain areas, such as where a disciplinary action is alleged to have been motivated by antiunion animus”].) The court clarified that Pacific Legal Foundation considered two types of potential conflicts: (1) where “an action by another agency actually encroaches on the merit principle, as where hiring or promotion is determined on the basis of political partisanship,” and (2) “where two agencies arrive at conflictin

2024Step Two: Probability of Success on the Merits If a defendant makes its required showing in the first step, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 .) In evaluating the second step, the court “accepts the plaintiff’s evidence as true” and “evaluates the defendant’s showing only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law.” (Id. at p. 385.) To establish a probability of prevailing on the claim, a plaintiff “‘must “‘state[] and substantiate[] a legally sufficien

2023(Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683 , 712 . . . .) If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 .) We review the trial court’s decision to grant or deny an anti-SLAPP motion de novo.

2020(See Oasis West, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 820 ["If the plaintiff [opposing the anti-SLAPP motion] 'can show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim, the cause of action is not meritless' and will not be stricken"]; Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 292 (Soukup) [a cause of action for malicious prosecution " 'lies when but one of alternate theories of recovery is maliciously asserted' "].) Because of how Tamara presented her anti-SLAPP motion, all that is at issue in this appeal is whether the court erred in determining that Kevin failed to demonstrate th

2020First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the 8 plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 .) “ ‘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, subject to being stricken under the statute.’ ” (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (20

2001Having established this ‘merit principle’ as a matter of constitutional law, and having established a nonpartisan Personnel Board to administer this merit principle, the constitutional provision left the Legislature with a ‘free hand’ to fashion Taws relating to personnel administration for the best interests of the State.’ ” (PLF, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 183-184, fn. omitted.) And we have said before the provisions did not create “an organic blueprint for the structure of agencies within the state’s executive branch.” (California State Employees’ Assn. v. Williams (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 390, 398

2001Having established this ‘merit principle’ as a matter of constitutional law, and having established a nonpartisan Personnel Board to administer this merit principle, the constitutional provision left the Legislature with a ‘free hand’ to fashion Taws relating to personnel administration for the best interests of the State.’ ” (PLF, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 183-184, fn. omitted.) And we have said before the provisions did not create “an organic blueprint for the structure of agencies within the state’s executive branch.” (California State Employees’ Assn. v. Williams (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 390, 398

2026(City of Montebello, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 420 ; Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 88-89; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 713-715 .) Although the plaintiff’s burden is not high, the plaintiff may not rely solely on the complaint, even if verified, but must present competent and admissible evidence to demonstrate the merit of the claim. ( Sweetwater, supra, 6 Cal.5th 6 at p. 940, 946; Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35 , 43 (Wisner); Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768

2026(City of Montebello, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 420 ; Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 88-89; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 713-715 .) Although the plaintiff’s burden is not high, the plaintiff may not rely solely on the complaint, even if verified, but must present competent and admissible evidence to demonstrate the merit of the claim. ( Sweetwater, supra, 6 Cal.5th 6 at p. 940, 946; Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35 , 43 (Wisner); Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768

2022(See Kidd v. State (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 386, 391, 401 [program allowing “certain minority and female applicants for positions in the state civil service to be considered for employment even though they did not place in the top three ranks of the list of eligible candidates” violates the merit principle]; Cal. State Employees Assn., supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 763, 775–776 [programs requiring promotions 21 Next, Employer, again joined by amicus SPB, argues Employee was not the most qualified candidate for the HCCA position.

2022(See Kidd v. State (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 386, 391, 401 [program allowing “certain minority and female applicants for positions in the state civil service to be considered for employment even though they did not place in the top three ranks of the list of eligible candidates” violates the merit principle]; Cal. State Employees Assn., supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 763, 775–776 [programs requiring promotions 21 Next, Employer, again joined by amicus SPB, argues Employee was not the most qualified candidate for the HCCA position.

2022Employer and SPB argue PERB’s finding that Employee was the most qualified candidate in the 2017 hiring process does not mean Employee will be awarded solely on the basis of seniority violate the merit principle]; Noce v. Department of Finance (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 5, 10 [merit principle violated by reclassifying employee “without competitive examination”]; Hastings v. Department of Corrections (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 963 , 974–977 [employee with a disability “is not entitled as an accommodation to reassignment to a position in a different civil service classification without complying with the

2022Employer and SPB argue PERB’s finding that Employee was the most qualified candidate in the 2017 hiring process does not mean Employee will be awarded solely on the basis of seniority violate the merit principle]; Noce v. Department of Finance (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 5, 10 [merit principle violated by reclassifying employee “without competitive examination”]; Hastings v. Department of Corrections (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 963 , 974–977 [employee with a disability “is not entitled as an accommodation to reassignment to a position in a different civil service classification without complying with the

2026(State Personnel Bd. v. Department of Personnel Admin. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 512, 526 (State 18 Personnel Bd. v. Department of Personnel Admin.); see also International Union of Operating Engineers, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 875 [“the merit principle is implicated not only in decisions to hire or promote state employees, but also in decisions to impose discipline”].) Again, CDCR argues the award interferes with the SPB’s constitutional authority to review disciplinary actions.

2026(State Personnel Bd. v. Department of Personnel Admin., supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 527 .) The court rejected this argument, noting the merit principle serves the general public, and “the public in general has a strong interest in ensuring that partisanship plays no role in selection and advancement within the state civil service.” (Ibid.) The court elaborated: “That public interest would be subverted if various ad hoc arbitral boards, operating beyond the control of the [SPB] and not bound to apply its merit-based standards, could review and reverse disciplinary actions taken against state civil

2026(City of Montebello, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 420 ; Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 88-89; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 713-715 .) Although the plaintiff’s burden is not high, the plaintiff may not rely solely on the complaint, even if verified, but must present competent and admissible evidence to demonstrate the merit of the claim. ( Sweetwater, supra, 6 Cal.5th 6 at p. 940, 946; Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35 , 43 (Wisner); Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768

2026(City of Montebello, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 420 ; Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 ; Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 88-89; Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 713-715 .) Although the plaintiff’s burden is not high, the plaintiff may not rely solely on the complaint, even if verified, but must present competent and admissible evidence to demonstrate the merit of the claim. ( Sweetwater, supra, 6 Cal.5th 6 at p. 940, 946; Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35 , 43 (Wisner); Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768

2021“First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 .) “‘We review de novo a ruling on a special motion to strike under section 425.16. [Citation.] Thus, we apply our independent judgment, both to the issue of whether the cause of action arises from a protected activity and whether the plaintiff has shown a probability o

2021(Barry v. State Bar of California (2017) 2 Cal.5th 318, 321 (Barry); accord, Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 381 (Baral).) “First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 ; accord, Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 (Park); Barry, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 321 .) Second, “

2026Joseph Health System, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 1024 [“‘“communications preparatory to or in anticipation of the bringing of an action or other official proceeding are within the protection of the litigation privilege”’”]; Flatley v. Mauro, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 322 [the “privilege has also been held to apply to ‘statements made prior to the filing of a 18 lawsuit’”].) The litigation privilege “is ‘an “absolute” privilege, and it bars all tort causes of action except a claim of malicious prosecution.’” (Flatley, at p. 322; see Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1063 .) The trial court co

2024(Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057 .) Crossroads is once again instructive.

2025(San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State University Research Foundation, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 95 .) We note that Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275 , 1289–1290 states to the contrary, but we disagree with Salma, as does “every other published case on this issue” (San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State University Research Foundation, at p. 108, fn. 19) and “the leading practical treatise” (Barker v. Fox & Associates (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 351, fn. 7 ). 10 Fahim requests that we remand the matter so the trial court can readdress her request for attorney

2025(Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 946 .) “Unverified allegations in the pleadings or averments made on information and belief cannot make the showing.” (Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1289 ; see also Sweetwater Union High School Dist., supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 948 .) If the plaintiff needs discovery to meet this burden, the statute authorizes it “on noticed motion and for good cause shown.” (§ 425.16, subd. (g).) 7 B.

2024(Cf. Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 788 [“a plaintiff seeking to demonstrate the merit of the claim ‘may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.’ ”]; Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 50 [“It is the responsibility of … the party opposing the anti-SLAPP motion[] to organize the evidence and develop its arguments at the second step of the analysis.”].) II.

2021First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 ).) “We review an order granting or denying an anti-SLAPP motion under the de novo standard and, in so doing, conduct the same two-step process to determine whether as a matter of law the defendant met its burden of showing the challenged claim arose out of protected act