6
Appellants’ Theory
Appellants contend: “Respondents’ Eleventh Cause of
Action . . . is based upon [appellant’s] alleged conduct in this
litigation, their filing the malicious prosecution lawsuit against
Respondents, and their alleged settlement communications in
both actions. This is exactly the type of activity that the
California Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the anti-
SLAPP statute is meant to protect.” “Without the allegations of
protected conduct, Respondents have no claim.”
Litigation-Related Activity is Protected Activity
“The anti-SLAPP protection for petitioning activities
applies not only to the filing of lawsuits, but extends to conduct
that relates to such litigation, including statements made in
connection with or in preparation of litigation. [Citation.]
Indeed, courts have adopted ‘a fairly expansive view of what
constitutes litigation-related activities within the scope of section
425.16.’” (Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton (2006) 145
Cal.App.4th 1532, 1537; see also Bonni v. St. Joseph Health
System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1024 (Bonni) [“claims that arise
out of the filing of a suit arise from protected activity for purposes
of the anti-SLAPP statute”].) “Settlement negotiations while a
suit is pending are likewise protected; they involve
communications in connection with a matter pending before or
under consideration by an official body, and so fall within the
scope of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2).” (Ibid.)
Respondents’ Claim for Relief in the Eleventh Cause of
Action Does Not Arise from Litigation-Related Activity
“Although litigation-related activities constitute protected
activity, ‘it does not follow that any claims associated with those
activities are subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. To qualify