What is the test for an anti-SLAPP motion?

We also reject defendant's argument plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence the statements are "of and concerning" him. This is a defamation action standard, not applicable to this case. As to claim the postings are too vague to show they refer to plaintiff, for purposes of an anti-SLAPP motion plaintiff must show only that the action has "minimal merit." (Navellier v. Sletten, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 93.) He has made such a showing in his declaration. Defendant's objections in the trial court to the declaration based on lack of foundation and competence, hearsay, speculation, and opinion are not well taken.

Page 15

In a related argument, defendant contends that interpreting the settlement agreement to bar the vague postings, that he characterizes as "'implications'" and "'innuendos,'" would violate the First Amendment, which requires that a waiver of one's right of free speech be clear and compelling. The case on which defendant relies, Ferlauto v. Hamsher (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1394, does iterate that standard for such a waiver but does not apply it to evaluation of the statements themselves, as defendant asserts. Again, at this stage, plaintiff need only show a basic prima facie case. We reject the same claim based on the California Constitution.