Is Hudack permitted to bring an anti-SLAPP motion?

Hudack contends the trial court "acted without authority [because it] did not consider the judgment roll, and ruled based on extrinsic evidence submitted by [defendants] in their prohibited anti-SLAPP motion." In the trial court's ruling, it concluded, "[Hudack] failed to meet his burden on the second prong of the analysis. [Hudack] failed to present admissible evidence that he has a reasonable probability of prevailing on his contention that the judgment in Hudack v. Siggard, et al., is void, despite the finality of the judgment in the action, after an appeal."