Pouriza v. St. Mary Med. Center

Pouriza v. St. Mary Med. Center Filed 8/30/06 Pouriza v. St. Mary Med. Center CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="354" valign="top"> G. FRANK POURZIA, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER etc., et al., Defendants, Respondents and Appellants. </td> <td width="285" valign="top"> B178159 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC034332) </td> </tr> </table> APPEAL from a judgment and order of the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Superior Court of Los Angeles County</a>. James L. Wright, Judge (Ret.) Judgment reversed and remanded with directions; order affirmed. Jonathan G. Shibley for Plaintiff and Appellant Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Barry S. Landberg, Terri D. Keville and Doreen Wener Shenfeld for Defendants and Respondents Dr. Jack Rabin and Dr. Myrvin H. Ellestad as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. ______________________________________ After exhausting his administrative remedies plaintiff brought this action against a hospital and individual members of its <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">judicial review committee</a>. Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from the hospital's revocation of his staff privileges. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> required plaintiff to first obtain a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">writ of administrative mandate</a> setting aside the hospital's revocation decision before instituting an action for damages. It was undisputed plaintiff had not obtained such a writ. Defendants also filed a belated special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint as a <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">SLAPP suit</a>.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> The trial court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. It denied their first SLAPP motion as untimely and denied their request to set a second motion as moot. Each party filed a timely notice of appeal. We reverse the judgment. Under well-settled law the trial court should have treated plaintiff's complaint as a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">petition for the writ of administrative mandate</a> required by Westlake. We uphold the trial court's order denying defendants a hearing on their SLAPP motion on the ground of mootness. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW Doctor G. Frank Pourzia is a cardiologist who had been a member in good standing on the staff of St. Mary Hospital from 1991 until the hospital suspended him in 1998. Pourzia and St. Mary disagree about the reasons for his <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">summary suspension</a> and ultimate termination. St. Mary maintains it acted to protect its patients and personnel from conduct by Pourzia â€