Bonni v. St. Joseph Health Sys., 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598

Aram Bonni, a surgeon, alleged St. Joseph and Mission hospitals retaliated under Health & Safety Code §1278.5 after he reported unsafe conditions in their robotic surgery program (staffing, malfunctioning robot/camera/instruments).
Bonni claimed defendants summarily suspended and later denied his medical staff privileges and subjected him to lengthy peer review in retaliation for his complaints.
Defendants moved to strike the retaliation cause of action under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16 (anti‑SLAPP), contending the claims arose from protected hospital peer‑review activities and that Bonni could not show a probability of prevailing.
The trial court granted the anti‑SLAPP motion as to both hospitals, finding the gravamen of Bonni’s claim was peer‑review protected activity and that Bonni failed prong two (probability of success).
The appellate court reversed, holding Bonni’s claim arises from alleged retaliatory motive (adverse actions for reporting) rather than from peer‑review statements or communications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bonni’s whistleblower/retaliation claim “arises from” protected activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute	Bonni: claim arises from defendants’ decisions to initiate summary suspensions and retaliatory conduct after his complaints, not from peer‑review statements	Defendants: the adverse actions were part of the peer‑review process and thus stem from protected speech/official proceedings, making the claim subject to anti‑SLAPP	Held: Claim does not arise from protected activity; liability is premised on retaliatory motive, not on communications during peer review — anti‑SLAPP inapplicable on prong one (reversed)
Whether the plaintiff demonstrated a probability of prevailing under prong two	Bonni: submitted emails, expert affirmations, and timeline showing complaints preceded suspensions; argued minimal showing met	Defendants: argued Bonni lacked admissible evidence of retaliatory animus and offered legitimate patient‑safety reasons for suspensions	Held: Court did not reach merits because anti‑SLAPP failed at prong one; appellate decision reverses trial court without ruling on probability prong

Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) (two‑prong anti‑SLAPP framework)
Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (2017) (claim is subject to anti‑SLAPP only if the protected statement/activity itself is the wrong complained of)
Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (2006) (peer review as an official proceeding for anti‑SLAPP purposes)
Nam v. Regents of University of California, 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (2016) (employer cannot hide retaliatory conduct behind protected communications; discrimination/retaliation claims do not arise from speech)
City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (2002) (anti‑SLAPP emphasis that defendant’s act underlying the claim must be in furtherance of protected rights)
Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) (defendant must show the plaintiff’s claim arises from protected activity in prong one)