Four individuals protested the Golden Gate racetrack’s allegedly improper treatment of race horses by sneaking onto the track, linking their arms by PVC pipes and lying across the track in a manner that prevented the racetrack from holding races.  The racetrack owner sued the four individuals for trespass and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, naming Direct Action as an additional defendant on a number of vicarious liability theories including agent-principle, aider and abetter and conspiracy.  This decision holds that Direct Action’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because Direct Action didn’t meet its initial burden of proving that the racetrack owner’s claims arose from conduct protected under CCP 425.16(e).  The elements of the racetrack owner’s claims for trespass and intentional interference were shown by the activities of the four individual defendants, and none of those activities were protected acts of free speech.  Direct Action’s claim that it was linked to the four individuals only by reason of its public, protected advocacy against cruelty to animals did not show that the claims arose from those protected activities.  However, Direct Action might have been able to exit the suit by other procedural means such as demurring on the ground that the vicarious liability allegations were conclusory and not based on any alleged facts or moving for summary judgment.