Element of MP includes damages so I thought I established a prima facie case for damages. I would ask that punitive damages be bifurcated to jury.

Any downside to the MSJ? It is my understanding that prevailing on anti-SLAPP immunized me from any counter-MP.

You may have established a right to damages, but you did not show how much you had been damaged. Especially given that one element of damages is emotional distress, only a jury can decide that. If you want judgment now, you would get $1.00.

One of the requirements of malicious prosecution is malice. You have shown evidence of malice, you may even have strong evidence of malice, but you have not established it.

There are two downsides: 1. Motions for summary judgment are time consuming and expensive. 2. You can't win.

There is a huge difference between showing a "probability" of prevailing (the anti-SLAPP standard) and showing that you must prevail as a matter of law, including as to the amount of damages you are entitled to (the msj standard). It is also not clear what you mean by letting them default. Finally, no judge will allow you to obtain a judgment by msj and then proceed to a jury trial on punitives for many reasons. One is that the trial on punitives will require you to put on your entire case, so there is no efficiency in granting an msj.