California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Wohanka v. Eagle Cmty. Credit Union, G044857, Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00418977 (Cal. App. 2011):
"A cause of action is subject to being stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute only if it 'arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit.' [Citation.] A plaintiff is not required 'toprove the specified claim to the trial court'; rather, so as to not deprive the plaintiff of a jury trial, the appropriate inquiry is whether the plaintiff has stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim. [Citation.] [] In deciding this question the court again considers the pleadings and evidentiary submissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant [citation]; however, it may not weigh the credibility or comparative probative strength of competing evidence. [Citation.] Rather, the court considers whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of facts based on competent admissible evidence that would, if proved, support a judgment in the plaintiffs favor. [Citations.]" (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 105.)
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.