HEALTH v.UNITE HERE Part-I
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>HEALTH v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >HEALTH v.UNITE HERE</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/21/10<br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</u>*<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Placer)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=394 valign=top ><br /> <br/>SUTTER HEALTH et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Appellants,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>UNITE HERE,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=230 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>C054400<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.Ct.No.<br /> SCV17938)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL<br /> from a judgment of the Superior Court<br /> of Placer<br /> County, Charles D. Wachob, Judge. Reversed.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Altshuler<br /> Berzon, Michael Rubin, Scott A. Kronland and Stacey Leyton for Defendant and<br /> Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Levy,<br /> Ram & Olson, Karl Olson, Erica L. Craven; Thomas W. Newton; Stephen J.<br /> Burns; Karlene W. Goller; Jonathan R. Donnellan, Kristina E. Findikyan; Judith<br /> L. Fanshaw; and Margaret C. Crosby for California Newspaper Publishers<br /> Association, McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., McClatchy Company, Los Angeles<br /> Times Communications LLC, Hearst Corporation, The Associated Press, Copley<br /> Press, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and<br /> California First Amendment Coalition, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant<br /> and Appellant. <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> O'Melveny<br /> & Myers, Robert C. Welsh, Sarah A. Stofferahn; Jones Day, F. Curt<br /> Kirschner, Jr. and Christopher T. Scanlan for Plaintiffs and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> In<br /> an effort to force a nationwide laundry company to employ only union members<br /> and to improve their working conditions, a labor union commenced a campaign<br /> utilizing a variation of a technique known as secondary picketing. The campaign was directed at a group of<br /> hospitals that used the services of the laundry company. The union mailed postcards to prospective<br /> clients of the hospitals, warning them that the hospitals had their laundry<br /> cleaned by a company that did not ensure the cleaned linens would be free of<br /> blood, feces, and other harmful pathogens. <br /> The postcards were intended to (1) dissuade people from using the<br /> hospitals because of the laundry company's shortcomings, thus (2) put pressure<br /> on the hospitals to stop using the laundry company's services<b<br /> >, </b>which would (3) persuade the laundry<br /> company to agree to the union's demands in order to avoid the loss of the<br /> hospitals' business. <br /> <br/> The<br /> hospitals fought back. Armed with<br /> evidence that their inspection control and linen handling policies ensured the<br /> delivery of hygienically clean laundry to all their patients, but that the<br /> union's postcard campaign had caused fewer patients to use the hospitals, the<br /> hospitals sued the union for defamation, trade libel, and intentional<br /> interference with prospective economic relations. <br /> <br/> The<br /> union appeals from the $17 million judgment entered after a jury found in<br /> favor of the hospitals. <br /> <br/>We agree with<br /> the union that the court committed harmful error by refusing to instruct the<br /> jury that the hospitals had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the<br /> union made the defamatory publication with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge<br /> of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. <br /> <br/>As we will<br /> explain, binding federal law holds<br /> that this actual malice burden of proof applies to plaintiffs who seek state<br /> remedies for defamatory labor dispute publications, and that such publications<br /> include those directed at â€