This decision holds that Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376 has fatally undermined the holding and reasoning of South Sutter LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, L.P. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 634.  Baral holds that mixed causes of action must be examined under the Anti-SLAPP statute based on the allegations regarding protected activity rather than under the Pomeroy “cause of action” analysis South Sutter applied.  Consequently, a finding in a prior suit alleged protected activity, that it alleged protected activity within the scope of the Anti-SLAPP statute is binding on a subsequent suit only to the extent the later suit alleges the same protected activity as a necessary element of a claim.  But where, as here, the later suit totally eliminated all the prior suit’s allegations of protected activity, the holding in the prior suit is not binding and cannot be relied on by the defendant to establish the first step (protected activity) of an Anti-SLAPP motion.