How does the anti-SLAPP statute work?

It is not enough to show that the action was triggered by or filed in response to or in retaliation for a party's exercise of free speech or petitioning rights. (Navellier v. Sletten, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 89.) "[T]he mere fact an action was filed after protected activity took place does not mean it arose from that activity. The anti-SLAPP statute cannot be read to mean that 'any claim asserted in an action which arguably was filed in retaliation for the exercise of speech or petition rights falls under section 425.16, whether or not the claim is based on conduct in exercise of those rights.' [Citations.]" (City of Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 76-77.) "[A] claim filed in response to, or in retaliation for, threatened or actual litigation is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute simply because it may be viewed as an oppressive litigation tactic. [Citation.] That a cause of action arguably may have been triggered by protected activity does not entail that it is one arising from such. To focus on City's litigation tactics, rather than on the substance of

Page 7