In California, when someone files a lawsuit because of you said something or make a legitimate complaint, you can end the harassing lawsuit using anti-SLAPP. 
    California’s anti-SLAPP statute is “a procedural device for screening out meritless claims.”  Jarrow Formulas, Inc. V. LaMarche, 31 Cal. 4th 728, 737 (2003).  It was passed to address “a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” CCP §425.16(a).
    The anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action “arising from any act ... in furtherance of (a) person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” CCP § 425.16(b)(1).
    Resolving an anti-SLAPP motion is a two-step process.  First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged causes of action arises from an act by defendant in connection with a public issue in furtherance of its rights of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution.  Governor Gray Davis Com. V.  American Taxpayers Alliance, 102 Cal.App.4th 449, 458-459 (2002).  If the court finds such a showing has been made, then the plaintiff will be required to demonstrate that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.  Id.
    For the plaintiff to prevail, however “the plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, 28 Cal. 4th 811, 821 (2002) (citation omitted).  If a plaintiff cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that he will prevail on his claims, the motion must be granted. Beilensen v. Sup. Ct., 44 Cal.App.4th 944, 953 (1996).  The moving party is then awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §425.16(c).