Edalat

INTRODUCTION

“A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of . . . free speech . . . in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike [commonly known as an anti- SLAPP motion1], unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).2) A party bringing such a motion must demonstrate that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by the statute. If the party succeeds, the court will strike the claim unless the plaintiff demonstrates the claim is legally sufficient and factually substantiated. (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (Baral).) Based on five acts of harassment allegedly orchestrated by appellant Dr. Robert C. Blaine, respondent Paul Edalat asked the trial court to issue a civil harassment restraining order against Blaine. In response, Blaine filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the court granted as to four of the alleged acts of harassment. The court denied the motion as to the fifth act -- an incident in which two men approached Edalat in…