In a suit between step-siblings of a 96-year old multi-millionaire, this decision holds that the trial court properly denied an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claim for an elder abuse restraining order.  The claim did not arise from the defendants’ protected litigation activities but from their non-protected acts of isolating the 96-year-old and causing him anxiety by importuning him to change his estate plan to their benefit.  However, the trial court did err in postponing ruling on the request for the restraining orders until after it had ruled on the Anti-SLAPP motion.  By taking the Anti-SLAPP motion first, the court indefinitely delayed the protection of a restraining order given the likelihood of an appeal from denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion which would stay all trial court proceedings, thus depriving the 96-year-old of protection.