|
3041 To show that an action is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute, the moving party need not show that the action was brought to chill constitutional rights, but need only show that it arose from an exercise of the constitutional rights of petition or freedom of expression; however, the question of whether the conduct that was the basis of the action actually was constitutionally protected may be relevant to an attempt by the opponent of the motion to show the ability to make out a prima facie case.
FOX v PALADINO (SLAPP Privilege) 89 CA4 294 [See: CCP 425.16; Wilcox v Superior Court 27 CA4 809, T/AT 9/94; Foothills Townhome v Christiansen 65 CA4 688, T/AT 12/98; Briggs v ECHO 19 C4 1106, T/AT 2/99]
|
|
|