In Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90, a corporation engaged in the business of maintaining water systems was sued for allegedly soliciting a competitor's customers by falsely claiming the competitor was using and dumping toxic illegal chemicals. In affirming denial of the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, the court concluded that "although pollution can affect large numbers of people and is a matter of general public interest," the statements giving rise to the plaintiff's claims "were not about pollution or potential public health and safety issues in general, but about the plaintiff's specific business practices." (Id. at p. 111.) In Mann v. Quality Old Time Service (2004) the defendants were former associates and competitors of the plaintiff, and they allegedly told plaintiff's customers that plaintiff was using illegal chemicals in its business and discharging them into the water supply, and defendants had also reported such alleged business practices to the National Response Center and the National Terrorist Hotline, resulting in an investigation. We concluded that the basis of the defamation cause of action, among others, was not only the comments made *30 to plaintiff's customers, "but also defendants' reports to governmental agencies-petitioning activity protected under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2)." (Mann, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 104-105; italics added.) Also, the plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case that it would prevail on defamation claims. (Id. at p. 107.) Ultimately, this court affirmed the trial court's order denying the defendants' motion to strike, with some exceptions not relevant here. (Id. at pp. 112-113. The Court held that a cause of action may only be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute if it arises from protected speech or petitioning activity and lacks even minimal merit. (Mann, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 105-106; Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 89.) "Where a cause of action refers to both protected and unprotected activity and a plaintiff can show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim, the cause of action is not meritless and will not be subject to the anti-SLAPP procedure." (Mann, supra, at p. 106.) Where substantial parts of the factual basis for the complaint are protected statements or conduct, the anti-SLAPP statute will apply. (Mann, supra, at p. 105.) In Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, the court explained: "Given the express legislative preference for awarding fees to successful anti-SLAPP defendants, a party need not succeed in striking every challenged claim to be considered a prevailing party within the meaning of section 425.16. A contrary conclusion would require a partially prevailing defendant to bear the entire cost of the anti-SLAPP litigation at the outset of the case. This would create a strong disincentive for a defendant to bring the motion, undermining the legislative intent to encourage defendants to utilize the anti-SLAPP procedure to eliminate SLAPP claims and to discourage plaintiffs from bringing meritless SLAPP claims. Citation." The Mann court concluded "a party who partially prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing the motion." (Id. at p. 340.)