Denied. Defendants’ objection to paragraph 6 of Sujan’s Declaration is overruled. First Prong: Under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, the moving party is not required to establish that his or her actions are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 94-95. The moving party is only required to demonstrate that the cause of action at issue arises from protected activity. Id. at 88. “When moving to strike a cause of action under the anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant that satisfies its initial burden of demonstrating the targeted action is one arising from protected activity faces no additional requirement of proving the plaintiff’s subjective intent. Nor need a moving defendant demonstrate that the action actually has had a chilling effect on the exercise of such rights.” Id. The defendant meets her burden by demonstrating that the act underlying plaintiff’s causes of action fits one of the categories set forth in C.C.P. §425.