In Kajima Engineering and Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, the plaintiff sued the city for payment on a reconstruction project, and the city cross-complained for breach of contract and numerous other causes of action. The court held that the anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable to all but one of the cross-complaint's causes of action, because they arose from the plaintiff's bidding and contracting practices, which predated the filing of the complaint, and not from acts in furtherance of plaintiff's right of petition. ( Id. at pp. 929-930.) The court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the cross-complaint was subject to a motion to strike because it was retaliatory and an oppressive litigation tactic. The court explained that "if a cross-defendant believes that a cross-complaint has been filed 'for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation,' or that the claims against it are frivolous or lacking in evidentiary support, then it may move for sanctions, including attorney fees and other expenses, to be awarded in the trial court's discretion. The anti-SLAPP statute, however, is not the appropriate remedy." ( Kajima, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 934.)