Murray v. Tran
55 Cal.App.5th 10
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- Drs. Ian Murray and My Tran formed Tran Murray Dental Corporation (TMDC) as 50/50 owners; Murray practiced dentistry while Tran managed business operations through Streamline entities.
- Financial disputes in 2017 led Murray to attempt to expel Tran; shortly thereafter Tran sent multiple communications accusing Murray of performing substandard dental work.
- Murray’s second amended complaint alleged two defamation causes of action (defamation and defamation per se), grouping the alleged statements into five categories (August internal emails; Sept. 22 email to consultant Dr. Devore; Sept. 29 email to retired dentist Dr. Burgess; Oct. 1 video/phone meeting to TMDC staff; December phone call to Murray’s then-employer Dr. Roger Tran).
- Tran moved to strike the defamation claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16); the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claims, finding the statements concerned an issue of public interest and Murray failed to show a probability of prevailing.
- The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held only the December communications to Murray’s employer implicated protected activity under § 425.16(e)(4); the other four categories were not sufficiently connected to public discussion and thus not protected. Murray failed to show Tran actually made the December statements, so that claim lacked evidentiary support and was properly struck.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murray) | Defendant's Argument (Tran) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged statements fall within § 425.16(e)(4) protected activity (FilmOn.com two-part test) | Statements about dentist competence implicate public interest and therefore are protected | Statements concerned public-interest health/safety matters and thus are shielded by anti-SLAPP | Four categories (Aug emails; Sept. 22 to Devore; Sept. 29 to Burgess; Oct. 1 staff meeting) are not sufficiently connected to a public discussion and are not protected; only December call to employer was functionally tied to public discourse and met e(4) |
| Whether Murray showed a probability of prevailing on the one protected claim (defamation elements) | He produced declarations and peer opinions rebutting Devore and evidencing falsity, privilege, malice issues, and harm | Tran produced Devore’s expert opinion supporting his statements and argued common-interest privilege/opinion defense | Murray failed to present admissible evidence that Tran actually made the December statements (no declaration or testimony from Dr. Roger Tran), so he did not meet his burden; the December claim was stricken |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying a continuance for discovery under § 425.16(g) | Additional discovery (depositions/documents) was necessary to oppose anti-SLAPP motion and show the December call occurred | No specific, tailored discovery showing was made to justify continuance | Any error was harmless: Murray did not identify that he needed Dr. Tran’s deposition to prove the December call, nor sought discovery from Dr. Roger Tran; appellate court did not reverse on this ground |
| Remedy on remand (scope of anti-SLAPP ruling) | Anti-SLAPP should not have been granted because most statements were private and not in public forum; merits exist | Motion properly struck defamation claims as public-interest protected and unsupported on merits | Court of Appeal reversed in part: vacate and enter new order striking only the claims tied to the December employer communication (Paragraphs 319 and 335) and denying the motion as to all other defamation allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (Cal. 2019) (establishes two-part test for § 425.16(e)(4): identify the public issue and determine whether the statement functionally contributed to public discussion, considering context, speaker, audience, and purpose)
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (Cal. 2019) (private communications may be protected but private context increases defendant’s burden to show contribution to public discussion)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (anti-SLAPP analysis is two-step and claims must be parsed to identify the object of the motion)
- Yang v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc., 48 Cal.App.5th 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (statements about a physician’s competence communicated to the public can further public discourse and be protected under § 425.16(e)(4))
- Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (statements in a public forum criticizing a dentist’s care can implicate public interest under anti-SLAPP analysis)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. 2007) (elements of defamation: publication, falsity, defamatory meaning, unprivileged, and injury/special damages)