Rios

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff urges the trial court erred in granting the anti- SLAPP motion, raising arguments that the speech at issue was not protected activity and the litigation privilege did not apply due to malice. He also argues the court erred in denying him leave to amend. However, we are unable to review the substance of his arguments for reasons explained below. The analysis of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps that revolve around analyzing the plaintiff’s complaint. “Initially, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims ‘aris[e] from’ protected activity in which the defendant has engaged.” (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 (Park).) Courts “consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.” (Id. at p. 1063.) If the defendant carries its burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s claims arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must then demonstrate its claims have at least “ ‘minimal merit.’ ” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 884.) To do so,…