McNally vs City of San Diego

Defendant County of San Diego's unopposed special motion to strike the cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is denied.

Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, sets forth the applicable analysis. Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps. First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 712, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185 (Taus).) If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success. We have described this second step as a "summary-judgment-like procedure." (Id. at p. 714, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185.) The court does not weigh evidence or resolve conflicting factual claims. Its inquiry is limited to whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and made a prima facie factual showing sufficient to susta........