Fitzgibbons v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings
A holding company, formed to acquire and operate a hospital, appeals from an order that denied its special motion to strike three causes of action in a complaint by one of its doctors. The doctor alleged that the holding company conspired to frighten and intimidate him in retaliation for his views on hospital policies and practices, made false police reports, and aided and abetted in the malicious planting of a handgun in his vehicle which led to his arrest. Court affirm the order denying the special motion to strike because the action does not arise from protected activity under Californias anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16). The principal thrust or gravamen of each of the subject causes of action arises from noncommunicative acts and other nonprotected activity. At most, the allegations involving protected free speech or petitioning activity are incidental to unprotected acts.
Comments on Fitzgibbons v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings