Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health
19 Cal. App. 5th 203
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- CVH (a hospitalist medical group) sued Dignity Health / St. Joseph's Medical Center alleging five business-tort claims (UCL, interference, inducing breach), expressly disclaiming any claims based on peer-review activity.
- The complaint alleged defendant induced CVH physicians to leave, harassed and discouraged physicians, diverted patients, and interfered with CVH's economic relationships, but pleaded few concrete factual acts.
- Dignity Health filed both a demurrer and an anti‑SLAPP (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16) motion asserting CVH’s claims arose from protected physician peer‑review activity; CVH repeatedly offered to stipulate peer review was not at issue and to amend the complaint for clarity.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer (with leave to amend conditioned on outcome of the anti‑SLAPP ruling) and denied the anti‑SLAPP motion, reasoning that where a complaint alleges no actionable facts, a defendant cannot meet prong one by submitting evidence about what it believes the plaintiff’s claims are based on.
- Dignity Health appealed the denial of the anti‑SLAPP motion; the Court of Appeal affirmed and criticized the appeal as delaying litigation and potentially abusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CVH’s complaint "arises from" protected activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute (prong one) | CVH: Complaint disclaims and does not plead conduct arising from peer review; the gravamen is economic interference and unfair competition | Dignity: Even if not pleaded, court should consider admissible evidence showing the claims are based on peer review and public‑interest healthcare communications | Held: Affirmed — the complaint does not arise from protected activity; defendant cannot satisfy prong one by introducing evidence about what it believes plaintiff’s claims are based on when plaintiff pled no acts tied to protected activity. |
| Whether courts may treat omissions or ‘‘artful pleading’’ as a basis to read in protected activity and permit anti‑SLAPP relief | CVH: Plaintiff is master of the complaint; court must look to pleaded facts and may accept offers to stipulate exclusion of peer review | Dignity: Allowing artful pleading to avoid anti‑SLAPP frustrates statute; courts should look beyond labels and consider evidence to prevent pleading around protections | Held: Court rejects defendant’s ‘‘look‑behind’’ approach; courts must identify protected activity from what is actually pled; cannot rewrite or insert alleged protected acts. |
| Appropriateness of sanctions for appeal | CVH: (did not reply to sanction inquiry) | Dignity: Appeal was taken in good faith; later moved to dismiss after intervening Supreme Court decisions | Held: Court warned about potential sanctionable delay and criticized counsel’s conduct but declined to impose sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006) (peer‑review statements can qualify as communications in an official proceeding under § 425.16(e)(2))
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (distinguishes Kibler; the ultimate decision itself is not automatically protected simply because it was reached through an internal process)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (defendant bears burden to identify allegations of protected activity supporting the claims)
- Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 198 Cal.App.4th 611 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (defendant cannot satisfy prong one when plaintiff fails to plead the allegedly defamatory/protected statements or acts)
- Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization, 203 Cal.App.4th 450 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (summary of two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis and de novo review)
- Nam v. Regents of University of California, 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (rejects expansive use of anti‑SLAPP to sweep up harassment/retaliation claims by reading in protected communications)
- DeCambre v. Rady Children's Hospital‑San Diego, 235 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (claims based on alleged harassment/termination were not necessarily protected peer‑review activity)