California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Bhandari v. Wash. Hosp., A144184 (Cal. App. 2017):
On the second prong of anti-SLAPP analysis, "the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success. . . . The court does not weigh evidence or resolve conflicting factual claims. Its inquiry is limited to whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and made a prima facie factual showing sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment. It accepts the plaintiff's evidence as true, and evaluates the defendant's showing only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff's claim as a matter of law. [Citation.] '[C]laims with the requisite minimal merit may proceed.' " (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384-385.) "On appeal, we review de novo the trial court's ruling on the motion to strike." (McGarry v. University of San Diego, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 109.)5
A. Exhaustion of Administrative and Judicial Remedies
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.