California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475, 376 P.3d 604 (Cal. 2016):
The anti-SLAPP statute does not insulate defendants from any liability for claims arising from the protected rights of petition or speech. It only provides a procedure for weeding out, at an early stage, meritless claims arising from protected activity. Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps. First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 712, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185 (Taus ).) If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success. We have described this second step as a summary-judgment-like procedure. (Id. at p. 714, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185.)5 The court does not
[205 Cal.Rptr.3d 481]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.