Barrett

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen J. Barrett appeals the district court’s dismissal of his malicious prosecution action under California’s anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Policy (“antiSLAPP”) statute, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16, and the award of attorney’s fees against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

We review a grant of defendants’ motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute de novo. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir.2003).

To strike Barrett’s claim under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Negrete and Clark had the initial burden to show that Barrett’s malicious prosecution claim against them arises from an act in furtherance of their free speech rights. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53, 58 , 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 507 , 52 P.3d 685 (2002). The burden then shifted to Barrett to prove a probability of prevailing on the merits. DuPont Merck Pharm. Co. v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 567 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 (2000). The district court ruled that although Barrett’s malicious prosecution claim was legally sufficient, it lacked evidentiary support. It then struck Barrett’s complaint and awarded…