IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS HAD NO NEW MATERIALS/AFFIDAVITS

TO SUPPORT THEIR NON-EXISTENT APPLICATION (Rule 173) to strike

her Statement of Claim (Amended Fresh Copy)
The court accepts as true all evidence favorable to the plaintiff.
See Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica Intl, Inc., 107 Cal. App.
4th 595, 605 (2003). If the defendant offers opposing affidavits, the court cannot weigh
them against the plaintiffs affidavits, but must only decide whether the defendants
affidavits, as a matter of law, defeat the plaintiffs supporting evidence. See Paul for
Council v. Hanyecz, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1365 (2001) (emphasis in original),
disapproved on other grounds, Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th
53, 68 n.5 (2002). Thus, a defendants anti-SLAPP4 motion should be granted when a
plaintiff presents an insufficient legal basis for the claims or when no evidence of
sufficient substantiality exists to support a judgment for the plaintiff. Metabolife Intl.,
264 F. 3d at 840 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
but must only decide whether the defendants affidavits, as a matter of law, defeat
the plaintiffs supporting evidence
Note: The defendants had no supporting affidavit materials in support of
striking her Statement of Claim (Amended Fresh Copy) therefore all
evidence filed by the plaintiff is accepted as true.