Two-Step Analysis of the Anti-SLAPP Statute in California, Invoked in X’s Lawsuit Against Ccdh

A. Anti-SLAPP

CCDH moves to strike the California causes of action pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. MTD&S at 8–9. A moving defendant must, at the first step, make a prima facie showing that the state law claims “arise from any act in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech” “in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1); Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254, 261 (9th Cir. 2013). If the defendant makes that showing, the court then considers whether the plaintiff has, at the second step, demonstrated “a reasonable probability” of prevailing on the merits of its claims. In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003)). This order will now address the first step: whether CCDH has made the required prima facie showing. This order will go on to address the second step on a claim-by-claim basis, applying a 12(b)(6) standard. See Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 890 F.3d at 834.