19 Cal.App.5th 203
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Central Valley Hospitalists (CVH), a medical group of hospitalists, sued Dignity Health and its hospital (SJMC) alleging business-tort claims (UCL, interference, inducing breach) based on conduct harming CVH’s relationships and business.
- The complaint expressly disavowed any claims based on peer review and defined "peer review" terms, and offered to stipulate or amend to exclude peer-review material.
- Dignity Health filed an anti-SLAPP (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) motion arguing CVH’s claims arose from protected peer-review activity and submitted extensive evidence; it also filed a demurrer.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend contingent on the anti-SLAPP ruling, and then denied the anti-SLAPP motion, reasoning the complaint alleged no factual acts and, where no acts are pleaded, a defendant cannot satisfy prong one by submitting evidence about what it believes the claims arise from.
- Dignity Health appealed the denial; the Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting Dignity Health’s attempt to treat CVH’s artful pleading as invoking protected peer-review activity and criticizing the appeal as delay-prone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CVH) | Defendant's Argument (Dignity) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CVH's complaint "arises from" protected activity under anti-SLAPP prong one | Complaint does not arise from peer review; it expressly disavows peer review and alleges business interference and related acts | The complaint actually challenges peer-review-related conduct; court should consider defendant's admissible evidence showing the claims stem from protected peer-review activity | Held: The complaint is not based on protected activity as pleaded; where no acts are alleged, defendant cannot meet prong one by submitting evidence about what it assumes the claims concern |
| Whether a defendant may satisfy prong one by submitting evidence contradicting the complaint's allegations/labels | CVH: the court must look to what is pleaded; plaintiff is master of the complaint and prong-one is pleaded-focused | Dignity: courts should consider admissible evidence at prong one to prevent plaintiffs from pleading around anti-SLAPP protections | Held: Trial court correctly declined to let defendant satisfy prong one solely by its evidence when the complaint pleads no acts; labels/conclusions in complaint are controlling for prong one analysis |
| Scope of Kibler and whether peer-review decisions automatically constitute protected activity | CVH: Kibler does not make all hospital decisions/proceedings automatically protected; arise-from analysis is separate | Dignity: Kibler establishes peer review and related decisions are protected, so complaint arises from protected activity | Held: Kibler does not automatically make every peer-review-related decision protected; courts must determine whether the claim "arises from" protected activity (Park guidance applied) |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous or prosecutable for delay (sanctions issue) | CVH: opposed sanctions; counsel declined to reply to clerk's sanction inquiry | Dignity: asserted appeal was in good faith and later sought dismissal after intervening authorities | Held: Court criticized the appeal as delay-prone and cautioned counsel though declined to impose sanctions; affirmed denial of anti-SLAPP and awarded costs to CVH |
Key Cases Cited
- Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006) (peer review statements can be protected under anti-SLAPP when tied to an official proceeding)
- Park v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (distinguishes arising-from inquiry from whether activity fits subdivision e definitions; decisions alone may not be protected speech)
- Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 198 Cal.App.4th 611 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (defendant cannot meet prong one when plaintiff fails to plead the acts on which claims are based)
- Nam v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (rejects expansive application of anti-SLAPP to harassment/retaliation claims by public entities; warns against sweeping anti-SLAPP use)
- Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com, 6 Cal.App.5th 602 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (court will not rewrite pleadings to manufacture protected-activity claims; anti-SLAPP analysis looks to what is actually alleged)