The trial court erred in granting defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution case. The evidence adduced on the motion showed that plaintiff had a probability of success in establishing the elements of the malicious prosecution claim. The dismissal of the underlying action for lack of prosecution was potentially a favorable termination on the merits. The original plaintiff was dismissed because he filed a bankruptcy petition but failed to schedule the claim on which he had sued in the underlying action, so he no longer owned the claim. A substitute plaintiff did not diligently prosecute the action. Class notice was not sent for several years after certification was granted. The new plaintiff’s deposition was never taken, though defendant had demanded it. These acts were consistent with plaintiffs’ conceding the aciton lacked merit. The trial judge erred in holding otherwise based on his recollection of why he had dismissed the underlying action as his recollection was not evidence introduced on the Anti-SLAPP motion. At least after the original plaintiff failed to list the suit on his bankruptcy schedules, the suit lacked merit as any reasonable attorney would have realized. The attorneys’ failure to research the point along with other evidence was sufficient to get to trial on the issue of malice.