7
for anti-SLAPP protection, the moving party must [also]
demonstrate the claim “arises from” those activities.’”
(ValueRock TN Properties, LLC v. PK II Larwin Square SC LP
(2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1046.)
“A claim arises from protected activity when that activity
underlies or forms the basis for the claim. [Citations.] . . . [T]he
focus is on determining what ‘the defendant’s activity [is] that
gives rise to his or her asserted liability—and whether that
activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning.’ [Citation.]”
(Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2
Cal.5th 1057, 1062-1063.)
“A claim does not arise from constitutionally protected
activity simply because it is triggered by such activity or is filed
after it occurs.” (World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. &
Financial Services, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1561, 1568.) “To
focus on [the plaintiff’s] litigation tactics, rather than on the
substance of [the plaintiff’s] lawsuit, risks allowing [the
defendant] to circumvent the showing expressly required
by section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) that an alleged SLAPP arise
from protected speech or petitioning.” (City of Cotati v. Cashman
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 78.)
“When the Legislature declared [in the anti-SLAPP statute]
that a ‘cause of action’ arising from activity furthering the rights
of petition or free speech may be stricken unless the plaintiff
establishes a probability of prevailing, it had in mind allegations
of protected activity that are asserted as grounds for relief. The
targeted claim must amount to a ‘cause of action’ in the sense
that it is alleged to justify a remedy.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at
p. 395.)