Does Graff meet the first step of an anti-SLAPP motion?

^2. Because we conclude Graff failed to meet the first step of her anti-SLAPP motion by establishing the challenged conduct arose from protected speech or petitioning, we omit a recitation of facts concerning the second step, i.e., whether Vaatete established a probability she would prevail on her claims. (See City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 80-81 [when a defendant does not establish the first step of an anti-SLAPP motion, a court need not reach the second step].)