Wang v. Heck
203 Cal. App. 4th 677
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Sarieh, a driver with epilepsy, suffered a seizure causing a crash that injured Gang Wang and Xiaofen Wang.
- Appellants sued Sarieh, his neurologist Heck, and USC on negligence theories; DMV was later also a named party in the litigation.
- Heck completed a DMV medical evaluation form in September 2008 stating Sarieh could drive safely if medicated; the DMV reinstated his license based on that form.
- Appellants allege Heck negligently evaluated Sarieh and negligently allowed driving, asserting causation to the September 2008 DMV form.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding all claims barred by Civil Code section 47(b) litigation privilege because the challenged conduct related to the DMV evaluation.
- Appellants appeal, arguing that pre-September 2, 2008 conduct and warnings not to drive were independent negligent acts not protected by the privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the litigation privilege bar all claims here? | Wang argues pre-sept. 2008 acts are not privileged and support triable issues. | Saarieh's conduct and the DMV form are privileged as communications in a quasi-judicial setting. | Yes, all claims barred by the privilege. |
| Is Heck's Sept. 2, 2008 DMV form a privileged communication? | Complaint rests on Heck's pre-form conduct and warning failures, not the form. | The form itself is a privileged communication connected to the DMV hearing. | Yes, the Sept. 2, 2008 DMV form falls within the privilege. |
| Are pre-form activities by Heck fallback independent torts unprotected by the privilege? | Pre-Sept. 2 actions could be independent negligence not protected. | Preparatory acts are part of the privileged communicative conduct tied to the DMV evaluation. | No; prep acts are protected, gravamen is the DMV communication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gootee v. Lightner, 224 Cal.App.3d 587 (1990) (privilege extends to preparatory activities leading to testimony)
- Block v. Sacramento Clinical Labs, Inc., 131 Cal.App.3d 386 (1982) (communications forming the basis of a negligent act are privileged)
- Ramalingam v. Thompson, 151 Cal.App.4th 491 (2007) (privilege extends to communicative acts, not noncommunicative acts independent of communication)
- Kashian v. Harriman, 98 Cal.App.4th 892 (2002) (doubts resolved in favor of applying the privilege)
- Gallegos v. Pacific Lumber Co., 158 Cal.App.4th 950 (2008) (judicial/administrative proceedings encompass 'truth-seeking' processes and privilege applies broadly)
- Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (2007) (purpose of privilege is to protect access to courts and honest testimony)