Anti-Slapp Motion Should Have Been Granted.

This action is for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff, a City Council member, was criminally prosecuted and acquitted in federal court. In this action, he sues the owner of a strip club who he alleges falsely testified he bribed plaintiff. At the heart of the matter is a city ordinance, referred to as the “no touch” ordinance, which prohibited touching between exotic dancers and customers. The strip club owner filed a special motion to strike the present malicious prosecution action pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute [Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16], which the trial court denied. On appeal, the appellate court found the strip club owner satisfied the first prong of the statute in that the complaint arises from protected activity, and that, when the burden shifted to the City Council member plaintiff to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits, he did not meet it. The appellate court reversed. (Zucchet v. Galardi (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; September 25, 2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1466, [178 Cal.Rptr.3d 363].)