Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 45, review denied, 178 Wn.2d 1020 (2013); see Eugster v. City of Spokane, 139 Wn. App. 21, 33, 156 P.3d 912 (2007) (The interpretation and application of a statute are reviewed de novo.). 7 RCW 4.24.525(4)(b) provides: A moving party bringing a special motion to strike a claim under this subsection has the initial burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is based on an action involving public participation and petition. If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the responding party to establish by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim. If the responding party meets this burden, the court shall deny the motion. 8 Laws of 2010, ch. 118, §l(a). 9 Burt v. Dep’t of Corr, 168 Wn.2d 828, 833, 231 P.3d 191 (2010) (<HOLDING>). 10 561 U.S. 186, 195-96, 130 S. Ct. 2811, 177 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a party cannot be joined to prevent removal where no cause of action can be brought against that party (B) holding civil action cannot be joined to a criminal appeal (C) recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action (D) holding that a person who requests public records is a necessary party and must be joined in any action brought under rcw 4256540 (E) holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception
Output (English): recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action