Young v. Tri-City Healthcare District
210 Cal. App. 4th 35
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Young challenged Tri-City Healthcare District board’s 2009 termination of his hospital medical staff privileges via a writ of administrative mandate seeking review of the administrative record and reinstatement.
- Young’s fifth cause of action sought relief from a December 2008 summary suspension, alleging improper review and lack of substantial evidence; other causes challenged the termination process itself.
- District moved to strike the fifth cause of action under anti-SLAPP § 425.16, arguing actions arose from protected peer-review activity and that Young failed to exhaust internal remedies regarding the suspension.
- Trial court issued a June 2010 grant to strike the fifth action, then vacillated between dismissing the entire action and narrowly limiting the dismissal to the fifth action after multiple reconsideration motions.
- District filed a separate appeal during the proceedings; the trial court later granted reconsideration in February 2011, which effectively reinstated the striking of the fifth action, a ruling the court later vacated on appeal.
- Court ultimately held that (a) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to continue reconsideration after the District’s appeal, (b) the February 2011 order was void, and (c) the fifth cause of action does not clearly arise from protected anti-SLAPP activity, so the merits of the anti-SLAPP ruling must be reconsidered on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court have jurisdiction to issue the February 2011 order while an appeal was pending? | Young argues the trial court retained jurisdiction to resolve reconsideration despite the District’s appeal. | District contends the filing of its appeal divested the trial court of authority to rule on reconsideration. | February 2011 order void; appellate proceedings divested trial court of jurisdiction to continue reconsideration. |
| Was the July 12, 2010 order dismissing the entire action technically valid or an overbroad clerical error? | The dismissal related only to the fifth anti-SLAPP action; the rest of the petition remained pending. | District asserted the July 12 order disposed of the entire action and should be final. | July 12 dismissal was overbroad; August 4 corrective order properly limited dismissal to the fifth action. |
| Did the fifth cause of action ‘arise from’ protected anti-SLAPP activity in the hospital peer-review context? | The fifth action seeks mandamus review of the summary suspension, grounded in statutory rights and not solely on protected speech. | The fifth action arose from protected peer-review activity and should be struck under § 425.16. | Fifth action does not clearly arise from protected activity; anti-SLAPP protections do not clearly apply as a matter of law. |
| If the fifth cause does not arise from protected activity, may the trial court proceed with mandamus review and related proceedings? | Mandamus relief is appropriate to review a biased or improper summary suspension,” independent of anti-SLAPP concerns. | Proceedings should be curtailed pending the appellate resolution of anti-SLAPP issues. | On remand, the merits should be reconsidered; anti-SLAPP protections do not foreclose mandamus review if not arising from protected activity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) (automatic stay and jurisdictional implications of appeals on trial court proceedings)
- Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 465 (Cal. 1986) (exhaustion of administrative remedies and futility considerations in mandamus)
- Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006) (anti-SLAPP may be raised by hospital districts in peer-review related actions)
- San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Assn., 125 Cal.App.4th 343 (Cal. App. 2004) (public-policy considerations limiting anti-SLAPP reach in public governance matters)
- Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, 181 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Cal. App. 2010) (substance of the government decision not always protected activity under anti-SLAPP)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (definition of what constitutes arising from protected activity under anti-SLAPP)
- Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 204 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. App. 2012) (deference to peer-review governance in hospital decisions and related protections)
- Foggy v. Ralph F. Clark & Associates, Inc., 192 Cal.App.3d 1204 (Cal. App. 1987) (collateral nature of certain post-judgment proceedings)
- Copley v. Copley, 126 Cal.App.3d 248 (Cal. App. 1981) (appeals and post-judgment motions and jurisdiction to entertain them)
- Estate of Waters, 181 Cal. 584 (Cal. 1919) (new trial-type relief as collateral to judgments)