Shankar

DISCUSSION

A trial court’s order granting a special motion to strike under section 425.16 is reviewed de novo. (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) However, the trial court is deemed to have impliedly found “every fact necessary to support the order.” (Briggs v. Eden Council For Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1115, fn. 6.) A motion to strike under section 425.16 is analyzed using a two-step process. First, the moving party must make a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from a protected activity. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67.) If the court finds that such a showing has been made, the

1 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. (Ibid.; see also Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821.) Here, Chu clearly satisfied the first step of the analysis, for it is well-established that filing a lawsuit is an exercise of the constitutional right to petition, and thus a protected act under section 425.16. (Briggs v. Eden Council For Hope…