How does the anti-SLAPP statute work?

resolve conflicting factual claims. Its inquiry is limited to whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and made a prima facie factual showing sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment. It 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." (Baral v. Schnitt, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 384-385.)

As for the first prong analysis, " '[t]he anti-SLAPP statute's definitional focus is not the form of the plaintiff's cause of action but, rather, the defendant's activity that gives rise to his or her asserted liabilityand whether that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning.' " (Baral v. Schnitt, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 393.) " '[T]he statutory phrase "cause of action . . . arising from" means simply that the defendant's act underlying the plaintiff's cause of action must itself have been an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech.' " (Ibid.) "Assertions that are 'merely incidental' or 'collateral' are not subject to section 425.16. [Citations.] Allegations of protected activity that merely provide context, without supporting a claim for recovery, cannot be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute." (Baral v. Schnitt, at p. 394.)

In cases involving allegations of both protected and unprotected activity, the plaintiff is required to establish a probability of prevailing on any claim for relief based on the allegations of protected activity. (Baral v. Schnitt, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 395.) Baral described the process as follows: "At the first step, the moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them. When relief is sought based on allegations of both protected and unprotected activity, the unprotected activity is disregarded at this stage. If the court

Page 14