Section 425.16 Motion

In Chabak v. Monroy (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1509-1510, we explained as follows the judicial role in deciding and then reviewing a ruling on a section 425.16 special motion to strike: "The special motion to strike established in section 425.16 may be used to attack a cause of action if (1) the cause of action arises from 'any act by the defendant in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution,' and (2) the defendant was exercising his or her right of free speech 'in connection with a public issue.' (Id., subd. (b)(1).) If the moving defendant establishes those two elements, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish there is a probability he or she will prevail on the cause of action. (Id., subd. (b)(1), (2); Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1400 .) "The trial court reviews the pleadings and the admissible evidence contained in the declarations to determine if the parties have met their burdens of proof. ( 425.16, subd. (b)(2); Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 26 .) The motion may be granted only if the cause of action arises from protected activity and the plaintiff cannot establish a probability of prevailing on the merits. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89 .) "An order denying a section 425.16 motion is an appealable order. (... 425.16, subd. (i), 904.1, subd, (a)(13).) We review the trial court's ruling on a section 425.16 motion de novo. (Gilbert v. Sykes, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 22 .) 'We exercise our independent judgment to determine not only whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies, but whether the complainant has established a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits.' (Ibid.) 'However, we neither "weigh credibility nor compare the weight of the evidence. Rather, we accept as true the evidence favorable to the plaintiff citation and evaluate the defendant's evidence only to determine if it has defeated that submitted by the plaintiff as a matter of law."' (Soukup v. Law Office of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260.)"