Is the legal sufficiency of a claim relevant in the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis?

We conclude by noting that the legal sufficiency of a claim is relevant in the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. As one court explained, "Although the cause of action was found to be insufficient as a matter of law (because it pled conversion of real property), which is a ruling the court might have made in sustaining a demurrer, the ruling was made in the context of assessing [the cross-complainant]'s probability of success under the second prong of section 425.16 analysis. That the analysis was similar to an analysis required for ruling on a demurrer does not convert the court's dismissal under section 425.16 to a ruling sustaining a demurrer." (Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1294-1295.) By the same token, the similarity in the required analysis does not convert an anti-SLAPP motion into a demurrer.

Page 13