Smith v. Consolidated Medical Staff of Valley General Hospital









Filed 11/16/10 Smith v. Consolidated Medical Staff of Valley General Hospital CA5








NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS



California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

BRENTON R. SMITH et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CONSOLIDATED MEDICAL STAFF OF CENTRAL VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL, HANFORD COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER and SELMA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL et al., Defendants and Appellants.

F057212 (Super. Ct. No. 08C0069) OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Thomas DeSantos, Judge.
van Hall Law Offices, Suzanne F. van Hall; DiCaro, Coppo & Popcke and Carlo Coppo for Defendants and Appellants.
Andrews & Hensleigh, Barbara Hensleigh and John Aumer for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
-ooOoo-
The defendants in this case are challenging the trial court's denial of their special motions to strike pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute.^[1] We will affirm the order denying the anti-SLAPP motions.
BACKGROUND
The defendants appealing this matter are (1) the Consolidated Medical Staff of Central Valley General Hospital, Selma Community Hospital and Hanford Community Medical Center (CMStaff) and (2) Nicolas E. Reiber, M.D., the chief of the consolidated staff.
The plaintiffs are Brenton R. Smith, M.D., and two of his corporations (collectively, Smith).
This appeal arises from the same lawsuit filed in Kings Superior Court that produced the appeal in Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (Nov. 16, 2010, F057211) __ Cal.App.4th __ (Smith I).^[2] The two appeals concern anti-SLAPP motions by different defendants challenging Smith's first amended complaint. All of the anti-SLAPP motions were denied by the trial court in February 2009.
Because the motions all sought to strike the same pleading and were denied in the same order, the parties in this case have joined in the briefing filed in Smith I, supra, __ Cal.App.4th __. We will adopt the same approach and will incorporate by reference the facts and discussion from our opinion in Smith I into this opinion. As a result, the matters set forth herein are relevant only to this appeal.
DISCUSSION

I. CMStaff's Motion

CMStaff's appellate briefing only raises issues that were raised in Smith I, supra, __ Cal.App.4th __. The issues joined in by CMStaff are rejected for the same reasons that they were rejected in Smith I. Therefore, we need not discuss CMStaff's anti-SLAPP any further in this opinion.

II. Reiber's Issues on Appeal

Reiber's appellate briefing discusses certain issues as they relate specifically to him. For instance, Reiber contends (1) the acts that allegedly harmed Smith were not taken by him and (2) any alleged wrongs by him were protected by three distinct qualified privileges set forth in the Civil Code. Both of these issues, we note, address step two of the required anti-SLAPP analysis. (See Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67 [second step concerns whether plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim].) We have determined in Smith I, supra, __ Cal.App.4th __ that the defendants' anti-SLAPP motions failed at the first step of the analysis. That determination applies here with equal force. Nonetheless, because Reiber may seek to argue his points before the trial court in connection with some other motion, we will address those questions Reiber raises as an alternate basis for our decision to uphold the trial court's denial of his anti-SLAPP motion.

III. Allegations of Reiber's Wrongful Conduct

Reiber's opening brief asserts that he â€