Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. v. Buschel
6 Cal. App. 5th 1098
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Sovereign Health of California operates treatment centers including a San Clemente facility; an Orange County Register article (originally 2010, updated 2013) discussed its CEO’s UK license history.
- Leonard Buschel publishes an electronic weekly eBulletin (≈22,000 readers) that links to third‑party articles with brief excerpts; on Aug 25, 2015 he linked the Register article with an excerpt stating Sovereign was “now running an unlicensed San Clemente rehabilitation facility” and that an investigation had begun into its licensing.
- After Sovereign objected, Buschel published a retraction and apology using language supplied by Sovereign, but Sovereign sued Buschel and his nonprofit Writers in Treatment for libel, libel per se, false light, and negligence focused on the licensing statements.
- Buschel and Writers moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing the statements involved an issue of public interest and that defendants were protected; Sovereign argued the statements were not a matter of public interest and could prevail on the merits.
- The trial court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion; defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo whether the claims arise from protected activity and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sovereign’s claims arise from activity protected by the anti‑SLAPP statute (i.e., speech in connection with an issue of public interest) | The eBulletin statements are not of public interest because they concern only a single facility’s license status and not a broader public issue | The eBulletin addressed matters of public interest—addiction treatment and operation of rehab facilities—distributed to 22,000 industry readers in a public forum | Held: Not protected. Statements were narrowly focused on one facility’s licensing and did not address a broader issue or an ongoing public controversy; anti‑SLAPP inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (explains two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework and standard of review)
- Talega Maint. Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp., 225 Cal.App.4th 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (discusses public interest requirement and need for ongoing controversy when interest is limited to a defined group)
- Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange, Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (requires identification of the specific speech at issue when assessing public interest)
- M.G. v. Time Warner, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishes statements that illustrate a broader societal issue from statements focused only on specific individuals)
- Rivero v. Am. Fedn. of State, County & Mun. Employees, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (examples of when private conduct may nonetheless implicate widespread public interest)