Hockey is a model whose authorized agent contracted for her to perform a 10-hour day’s modeling for Brighton for $3,000 payable on receipt of the agent’s invoice.  After modeling as agreed, Hockey sued Brighton, claiming it was her employer and that it violated Lab. Code 201 by not paying her the full amount due at the time her employment ended at the conclusion of the day’s modeling session, thus subjecting Brighton to $90,000 in waiting time penalties.  Brighton cross-complained for fraud, claiming that Hockey had represented that she was to be paid the $3,000 upon the agent’s invoice, that Brighton had relied on that representation, and that it was damaged by being subjected to the risk of liability to Hockey for the $90,000.  This opinion holds that there was sufficient evidence to make the required prima facie showing at the second stage of the Anti-SLAPP inquiry to require denial of Hockey’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike.