Recording a mechanics lien is protected activity under CCP 425.16(e) (the Anti-SLAPP statute) even if the lien was improperly filed.  The lawfulness of the lien is taken into consideration only during the second step of Anti-SLAPP analysis–that is in considering whether the plaintiff has shown probability of success on the merits.  So the fact that this litigation arose from defendant’s recording of a fourth mechanics lien after plaintiff had already posted a release bond for the first recorded lien does not show that recording the fourth lien was unprotected.  Disagreeing with A.F. Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, this decision holds that the defendant need not show it recorded the mechanics lien “in good faith” in order to claim the Anti-SLAPP statute’s protection.  In any event, the good faith requirement is satisfied by taking a step that is a required pre-condition to later litigation, as recording a mechanics lien is.