Following Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, this decision holds that defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted. The suit alleged that the defendant had breached his employment agreement, which contained an arbitration clause, by filing suit rather than going to arbitration. Since defendant’s suit was protected activity and was the sole fact showing a breach of contract, the trial court properly held that the suit was based on protected activity even though it alleged a normal breach of contract claim. In an unpublished discussion, the opinion also holds that the plaintiff failed to establish a probability of success on the merits since it didn’t authenticate the employment agreement which it claimed defendant had breached.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2 (Fields, J.); September 20, 2018 (partial publication); 27 Cal. App. 5th 424