Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health

*849 *206 The anti-SLAPP dismissal process has been described as manifesting the " 'Legislature's objective of providing a quick and inexpensive method for unmasking and dismissing' " unmeritorious cases. ( Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc . (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049 , 1055-1056, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) And it has accomplished that salutary objective, allowing the early dismissal of cases coming within anti-SLAPP on which plaintiff cannot prevail.

At the same time, the anti-SLAPP process has been criticized in some respects, including by this court in Grewal v. Jammu (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 977 , 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 835 ( Grewal ), where we discussed for several pages particular "ways in which the anti-SLAPP procedure is being misused-and abused." ( Id . at pp. 998-999, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 835 .) We ended our opinion with a section entitled "A Losing Defendant's Right to Appeal Is the Aspect of the Anti-SLAPP Statute Most Subject to Abuse," describing how an unmeritorious-if not frivolous-appeal will result in an inordinate delay of the plaintiff's case and unnecessary legal fees. We noted we were not the first court to recognize possible misuse of anti-SLAPP.…