Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV03405, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03405    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 26, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Renewed Anti-SLAPP

its

T/R:      Defendants’ RENEWED anti-SLAPP is DENIED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The court considers the moving papers, opposition, reply.

BACKGROUND

On February 16, 2023, Plaintiffs Dr. Nayyer Ali, M.D. and Dr. Mauricio Heilbron, M.D. filed a complaint against Defendants Dignity Health dba St. Mary Medical Center, Carolyn Caldwell, Charles Anderson and Christopher Pook, asserting causes of action for (1) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; and (2) retaliation. Plaintiffs allege Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for advocating for the medical staff and patients.

On June 15, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ first anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants appealed. On December 31, 2024, the Court of Appeal affirmed as to the allegations relating to Dr. Heilbron and reversed as to the allegations relating to Dr. Ali.

ANALYSIS

In ruling on a special motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, or anti-SLAPP motion, the court applies a two-prong test. First, the court determines whether the moving defendant has met his or her burden to establish that the “challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” (Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 66.) The moving defendant meets this burden by demonstrating that “the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken ‘in furtherance of the [defendant]'s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue,’ as defined in the statute.” (Id.)

The court then moves to the second prong, in which the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of the complaint. (Id.) “To establish such a probability, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” (Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 548.) “Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute—i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit—is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89.)

A. Protected Activity

“A cause of action. . . arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition” is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.  (CCP § 425.16(b)(1).)  Protected activities include: “(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before…any…official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by…any…official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or oral statement…made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”  (CCP § 425.16(e).)

Defendants bring this renewed anti-SLAPP motion under CCP § 1008, citing “new or different facts” that require the Court change its decision as to Dr. Heilbron’s allegations relating to the peer review process of “Dr. X.” The Court previously discussed these allegations as follows:

Defendants also point to communications made in the peer review process against another doctor, Dr. X. Heilbron alleges Defendants rejected the peer review findings that Dr. X be suspended due to dangerous practices. (Compl. 56-62.) Heilbron alleges that Defendants treated Dr. X more favorably than Heilbron and threatened to withhold indemnity should Heilbron make an “805 Report” to the Medical Board against Dr. X that resulted in litigation. Heilbron alleges he made the 805 report anyway. Defendants assert all of this activity is protected and serves as bases for liability against Defendants. The Court disagrees. Heilbron does not allege Defendants’ actions against Dr. X were done to retaliate against Heilbron. The only liability producing fact here is the “threat” to withhold indemnity.

The Court finds the threat to withhold indemnity is a protected communication in connection with the peer review process of Dr. X. The statement was made in reaction to the peer review process and 805 reports are directly related to peer review process and investigation. (Compl. 30.) Heilbron alleges Defendants retaliated against him with “threats.” (Compl. 80.) Paragraph 63 arises from Defendants’ protected activity.

The Court of Appeal addressed the same allegations:

Dr. Heilbron alleged defendants retaliated against him because he filed an 805 report with respect to Dr. Taheri. Dr. Heilbron’s 805 report was not a part of but was outside of SMMC’s medical peer review of Dr. Taheri. That is, none of the allegations concerning Dr. Taheri’s medical peer review was an element of Dr. Heilbron’s retaliation claim, which claim included the following elements: (1) he filed an 805 report, (2) about the quality of patient care, and (3) defendants retaliated against him for doing so. Instead, allegations about Dr. Taheri’s peer review were “ ‘merely incidental’ ” or “ ‘collateral’ ” contextual allegations that did not support his claim for recovery. Accordingly, defendants failed to meet their first step burden to show the challenged allegations arose from their protected activity.

Defendants now assert that Dr. X (aka Dr. Taheri) has sued Heilbron in a separate lawsuit alleging Heilbron retaliated against him by filing the 805 report. Defendants argue that this shows that Heilbron’s allegations relating to the same conduct must be protected. The Court disagrees. As stated by this Court and the Court of Appeal, Heilbron’s allegations of retaliation do not arise from the peer review communications related to Dr. X. The only exception to this is the allegation that Defendants threatened to withhold indemnity. That Dr. X has sued Heilbron has no effect on Heilbron’s allegations against Defendants here.

Defendants have failed to establish that Plaintiffs’ allegations arise from protected activity. Defendants’ motion is DENIED.