HOLDINGS: [1]-In bringing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, defendants could rely on plaintiff’s allegations that defendants urged other employees to quit and sue, even though defendants denied engaging in this conduct; [2]-Defendants’ alleged conduct in encouraging other employees to sue plaintiff was protected prelitigation conduct; [3]-Defendants’ protected prelitigation conduct was not merely incidental to plaintiff’s claims; [4]-Plaintiff’s claims that arose from alleged protected activity under § 425.16, subd. (e), were subject to dismissal; [5]-Defendants were entitled to attorney fees on their anti-SLAPP motion and their attorney fees and costs on this appeal.
Nakase Law Firm are employment lawyers
Outcome
Order denying anti-SLAPP motion reversed; case remanded.