Does Ardmore have sufficient factual substantiation to support its cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage?

We need not reach the question whether Ardmore has provided sufficient factual substantiation for the specific elements of this cause of action because, for the reasons discussed below, Ardmore failed to state a legally sufficient claim as to its cause of action for intentional interference of prospective economic advantage. (See Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 31 ["If the pleadings are not adequate to support a cause of action, the plaintiff has failed to carry his burden in resisting the [anti-SLAPP] motion"].)