Shloss was Cohen’s attorney in a disability discrimination suit Cohen brought against Golden State when one of its delivery drivers parked in a disabled persons parking spot to make a delivery.  Cohen claimed the delivery truck kept him from parking the disabled spot and thus blocked his access to nearby business A.  At trial, Cohen had no evidence to show that he held a disabled person’s parking placard enabling him to park in the spot.  Also, he changed his story from needing access to business A (which was closed) to business B.  After the jury verdict exonerated Golden State, it sued for malicious prosecution and UCL violation.  Held, Schloss’ Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because Golden State showed a probability of success on its claims.  Proceeding to trial knowing he lacked evidence of an essential element of his claim (the placard) as well as the client’s change in key testimony (the business) established lack of probable cause and malice.  The denial of a directed verdict motion during trial did not serve to invoke the interim adverse judgment rule in Schloss’ favor either because such a denial is never a ruling on the merits, or because it was not at least in this case since the judge denied it “at this time” in order to let the case go to the jury.  On the UCL claim, Golden State introduced evidence to show that the prior suit was part of a pattern of shake-down litigation that Schloss and Cohen had brought against other businesses based on similar parking violations.