When the complaint reveals on its face that it is based on the defendant’s protected activity, the defendant may, in its Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, rely on the complaint’s allegations and need not submit declarations attesting that he did, in fact, engage in the alleged protected conduct.  Otherwise, a defendant could not strike a frivolous complaint charging protected conduct that defendant denies he engaged in.  Here, an employer sued an employee claiming that the employee had encouraged other workers to reject the employer’s settlement offers and sue the employer for wage and hour violations.  Such pre-litigation conduct encouraging third parties to sue is protected conduct under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.1(e) and so the trial court should have granted the employee’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two (Lui, J.); February 26, 2018; 2018 WL 1045222.