I have the same question. In Younger v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.3d 102 (1978, the California Supreme Court discussed "the well settled rule that an action wholly dependent on statute abates if the statute is repealed without a saving clause before the judgment is final. (See, e.g., Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829-831 [135 Cal.Rptr. 526, 558 P.2d 1], and cases cited; Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles (1940) 15 Cal.2d 1, 11-12 [97 P.2d 963]; Krause v. Rarity (1930) 210 Cal. 644, 652-653 [293 P. 62, 77 A.L.R. 1327].) "'The justification for this rule is that all statutory remedies are pursued with full realization that the legislature may abolish the right to recover at any time.'" (Governing Board v. Mann (1977) supra, 18 Cal.3d 819, 829, quoting from Callet v. Alioto (1930) 210 Cal. 65, 67-68 [290 P. 438].)"
 

In Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 119 Cal.App.4th 120, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 926, 931 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.,2004), the Court of Appeal held that the enactment of CCP 425.17, which amended CCP 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute), effected a "partial repeal" of the statute and, as such, was within the rule that "when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, 'a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon.'"