WITTE v. KAUFMAN
Filed 8/1/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
COPY
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THOMAS WITTE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAMES KAUFMAN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C049472
(Super. Ct. No. 04AS03863)
|
Story Continue from Part I ……..
This argument is specious. The question under the anti-SLAPP statute is whether the current lawsuit stems from protected activity. It makes no difference that the protected activity was completed. A moving defendant need not demonstrate the plaintiff intended to chill petition or free speech rights or that the action has that effect. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88.) If a suit is permitted based on past protected conduct, future protected conduct would be chilled. (See Vogel v. Felice (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)
V
Probability of Prevailing
Once the defendant establishes the case involves an exercise of the right of petition or free speech, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a probability of prevailing. To meet this burden, the plaintiff â€