Does a motion for a "special" anti-SLAPP suit motion refer to "complaint" refer to an earlier complaint that had been amended to contain anti-free speech claims?

In context, the "special" anti-SLAPP suit motion is directed at a particular document, namely "the complaint." It would make no sense to read "complaint" to refer to an earlier complaint that contained no anti-free speech claims, but not allow such a motion for a later complaint that had been amended to contain some. After all, the whole purpose of the statute is to provide a mechanism for the early termination of claims that are improperly aimed at the exercise of free speech or the right of petition. (See Paul for Council v. Hanyecz, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1364 ["the anti-SLAPP legislation found in section 425.16 provides an efficient means of dispatching, early on in a lawsuit, a plaintiff's meritless claims"].)