On appeal from a prior order on an Anti-SLAPP motion, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to grant the motion as to certain paragraphs of one cause of action.  The trial court then granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, but with leave to amend.  Plaintiff’s amended complaint again alleged some of the protected conduct which the Court of Appeal had ordered stricken from the original complaint.  This decision holds that a second Anti-SLAPP motion (rather than an ordinary motion to strike) is the proper procedural vehicle for removing the new allegation targeting the same protected conduct.