Edalat

INTRODUCTION

Bruce Cahill appeals from an order denying his motion to strike under Code 1 of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. Respondents Paul Edalat and Olivia Karpinski sued Cahill for allegedly defamatory statements he made after largely prevailing in a federal lawsuit in which Cahill was the plaintiff and Edalat and Karpinski were defendants and counterclaimants. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that part of it was untimely and that the newly allegedly defamatory statements were not protected activity. We affirm. Although respondents’ first amended complaint added some details to the existing allegations of their original complaint, the gravamen of their causes of action for defamation did not change. The court had already denied a previous, timely, anti-SLAPP motion on those causes of action. As for the new claim in the first amended complaint, the trial court correctly ruled that Cahill did not carry his burden to show protected activity as required by the first prong of an anti-SLAPP analysis.

FACTS

Edalat and Karpinski filed a complaint against Cahill, a public relations firm, a New Hampshire newspaper, and its editor on June 1,…