4
dismiss [the malicious prosecution] action for a waiver of fees and
costs, and (2) offered to dismiss [the] action in exchange for a
dismissal of [respondents’] claims . . . . [¶] . . . If [respondents]
refused to dismiss their claims . . . , [appellants] would not
dismiss their malicious prosecution action . . . and [they] would
continue diverting resources intended for improving Park
conditions and operations to litigation against [respondents]
instead.” Appellants “expressly threatened to evict” three
respondents “in the event they did not dismiss their claims
against [appellants] . . . .”
Appellants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion
“[A]n anti-SLAPP motion may be directed to specific
allegations of protected activity [within a cause of action] which
constitute claims for relief but do not constitute an entire cause of
action as pleaded.” (Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v.
Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 48.)
Appellants’ anti-SLAPP motion was not directed to specific
allegations of protected activity within the eleventh cause of
action. They moved “for an order striking the Eleventh Cause of
Action . . . in its entirety under the Anti-SLAPP statute.”
Appellants argued: “[T]he entire bas[i]s of [respondents’] claims
against [appellants] arise[s] from the filing of [the malicious
prosecution] lawsuit against [respondents] and alleged
settlement communications . . . .” Therefore, “the conduct alleged
in the [eleventh cause of action] falls squarely within the conduct
protected under [the anti-SLAPP statute], as protected activity in
a judicial proceeding.”
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court acknowledged “that the filing of a malicious
prosecution action is protected activity” under the anti-SLAPP