Desert Valley Hospital v. Waitschies
Filed 5/31/06 Desert Valley Hospital v. Waitschies CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| DESERT VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALANNA WAITSCHIES et al., Defendants and Respondents. | E038210 (Super.Ct.No. VCV35773) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kurt J. Lewin, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Ronald S. Hodges, Michael J. Sarrao, and Shulman, Hodges & Bastian LLP for Plaintiff and Appellant.
David P. Pruett and Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen & McKenna for Defendants and Respondents.
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint and dismiss this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 425.16. The trial court agreed with defendants that the complaint was a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit within the meaning of section 425.16. It therefore granted the motion, dismissed the action and ordered plaintiff Desert Valley Hospital to pay the attorney fees incurred by defendants.
Desert Valley Hospital's appeal from the trial court's decision requires us to determine de novo (1) whether defendants made the threshold showing that the complaint arises from protected activity; and (2) if so, whether plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its claim. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67 (Equilon).) Under section 425.16, subdivision (b)(2), the trial court in making these determinations considers â€
