5
unlawful detainer claim was factually and legally tenable, and he never had any malicious
intent or ill will towards the plaintiffs.
The remaining claims, defendants argued, were barred as a matter of law by the
litigation privilege.
Plaintiffs’ opposition argued the anti-SLAPP motion should be denied as to the
fourth cause of action under Civil Code section 1950.5, subdivision (b)(1), because the
claim arose out of defendants’ misuse of plaintiffs’ $2,000 security deposit, which was
not protected activity. As to the remaining claims for wrongful eviction, breach of the
covenant of quiet enjoyment, and malicious prosecution, plaintiffs argued there was
sufficient merit to withstand the anti-SLAPP motion.
After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion in its entirety. The court found
that the fourth cause of action under Civil Code section 1950.5, subdivision (b)(1), did
not arise out of protected activity, and that plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing
on their remaining claims.
The attorney defendants appealed. (§ 904.1, subd. (a)(13).)
DISCUSSION
The anti-SLAPP statute authorizes a special motion to strike claims arising from
any act “in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United
States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.”
(§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) Such acts include “any written or oral statement or writing”
made before a “judicial proceeding.” (Id., subd. (e).)
Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps. First, the defendant must
identify the activity each challenged claim rests on and demonstrate that that activity is
protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State
University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061.) To determine whether a claim arises from
protected activity, courts must consider the elements of the challenged claim and what
actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for
liability, and then evaluate whether the defendant has shown any of these actions fall
within the categories of acts protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. (Park, at p. 1063.) If