To me, it's simple. When Psy put up the website, he emailed her to invite corrections. She decliened to do so. One would think if there were any innacurate statements, she would have simply provided proof back then without waiting for "damages". It's not Psy's fault she declined to do so. She more or less consented to the publication of the website. Moreover, she waited over a year to file a lawsuit, which is untimely and expressly forbidden by the statute of limitations.
The judge did not have to waste his time quibbling over truth or falsity. In fact, he was forbidden to do so (that is for a trial). What the judge had to decide was two things: did the case have to do with free speech, and could the plaintiff (Benchmark) prove the case was winnable. Well, the statute of limitations pretty much kills the possibility of they winning right then and there, so why would the judge address anything else? This is more spin from Benchmark and they'd be stupid to appeal the case. It'll just end up costing them more than it is already, since anti-SLAPP awards court costs to the defendant if it suceeds (and it did). The same goes for appeal. If they want to bankrupt themselves, they should continue.