Is a landlord's unlawful detainer action followed by a tenant's lawsuit?

Whether the statute applies is determined from the principal thrust or gravamen of the plaintiff's claim. (Martinez v. Metabolife Internat., Inc . (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 181, 187, [6 Cal.Rptr.3d 494].) For this reason, the sequence in which actions are filed is not determinative of whether a lawsuit is a prohibited suit. The mere fact that a lawsuit was filed after the defendant engaged in protected activity does not establish the complaint arose from protected activity under the statute because a cause of action may be triggered by protected activity without arising from it. (Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 7677, 78, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 519, 52 P.3d 695.)

Numerous anti-SLAPP cases have discussed a landlord's unlawful detainer action that is followed by a tenant's lawsuit. Unless the sole basis of liability asserted in the tenant's complaint is the filing and prosecution of the unlawful detainer action, the tenant's action will not be targeted at protected activity. (Birkner v. Lam (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 281282, [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190] [where action directed solely at filing of unlawful detainer action, the unlawful detainer action is protected activity for purposes of

[231 Cal.App.4th 1052]