5
succeeds at the first step, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to “ ‘ “demonstrate[ ] a
probability of prevailing on the claim.” ’ ” (Ibid.)
A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis
for the claim. We look to whether “ ‘the defendant’s act underlying the plaintiff’s cause of
action [was] itself . . . an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech.’ ” (Park v.
Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1063, italics added
(Park).) “[T]he focus is on determining what ‘the defendant’s activity [is] that gives rise to
his or her asserted liability—and whether that activity constitutes protected speech or
petitioning.’ ” (Ibid.) In teasing out whether we are dealing with protected conduct, “courts
should consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant
supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.” (Ibid.)
At the second step, “ ‘[w]e . . . evaluate the defendants’ evidence only to determine if
it defeats that submitted by the plaintiff as a matter of law.’ [Citation.] ‘[I]n order to
establish the requisite probability of prevailing [citation], the plaintiff need only have
“ ‘stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim.’ ” [Citation.] “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.’ ” ’ [Citation.] . . . That burden [is] not particularly
high[.]” (Area 51 Productions, Inc. v. City of Alameda (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 581, 602; see
Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 94 [“claims with the requisite minimal merit may
proceed”].)
If the cause of action satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute, then it is
subject to being stricken. (Barry, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 321.) On appeal, this court reviews
a trial court’s order granting an anti-SLAPP motion de novo. (Chodos v. Cole (2012)
210 Cal.App.4th 692, 698.) Thus, whether a defendant has met his or her burden under the
first prong, and if so, whether a plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing under the
second prong, are both questions this court reviews independently on appeal. (Kashian v.
Harriman (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 892, 906.) On de novo review, “ ‘[w]e look at the
pleadings and declarations, accepting as true the evidence that favors the plaintiff and