Lee-Owens

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW2

In reviewing a decision under section 425.16, we review the trial court‟s decision

de novo, and independently determine whether the parties have met their respective

burdens. (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1365-1366.)

B. THE TRIAL COURT‟S DECISION

The trial court‟s minute order states: “Anti-SLAPP motions must be supported

(and opposed) by declarations stating facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

CCP section 425.16(b)(2). Thus, declarations may not be based upon „information and

belief‟ (Evans v. Unkow (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1497-98 [Evans]), and documents

submitted without the proper foundation are not to be considered. Tuchscher

Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th

1219, 1238 [Tuchscher]. [¶] Here, however, [Goodman] did not provide the requisite

declarations to bring this motion, but instead, counsel for [Goodman] submitted a

declaration reciting her billing rate for purposes of requesting an award of costs and fees

if [Goodman] prevails. Therefore, the motion does not conform with the statutory

scheme for anti-SLAPP actions and is Denied.…