What is the test for establishing a reasonable probability under section 1714.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure?

To start, we reject defendants' contention that establishing a "reasonable probability" under the statute goes beyond a prima facie case. As defendants themselves concede, the "seminal" case, Hung v. Wang (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 908, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 113, interprets "reasonable probability" under section 1714.10 to mean only a prima facie showing. In the court's words:

"As we construe section 1714.10, the trial court may not make findings as to the existence of facts based on a weighing of competing [26 Cal.App.4th 726] declarations. Whether or not the evidence is in conflict, if the petitioner has presented a sufficient pleading and has presented evidence showing that a prima facie case will be established at trial, the trial court must grant the petition." (Hung v. Wang, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at pp. 933-934, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 113.)

In Aquino v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 847, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, we adopted the same approach in interpreting "substantial probability" under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 to require only a prima facie showing of plaintiff's entitlement to punitive damages. (Id. at pp. 854-856, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 477.)