INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS v. MICHAEL

Filed 6/14/06

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

MICHAEL FITZGIBBONS,

Defendant and Appellant.

G036080

(Super. Ct. No. 05CC07563)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Geoffrey T. Glass, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Bond Curtis, Tom Curtis and Alexander W. Kirkpatrick for Defendant and Appellant.

McNeil, Tropp & Braun, Yolita Nowak Lecellier, Jeff I. Braun and Deborah S. Tropp for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Catherine I. Hanson and Gregory M. Abrams for California Medical Association and American Medical Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Michael Fitzgibbons appeals the trial court's denial of his special motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute ^[1] (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).^[2] Fitzgibbons contends an e-mail message he sent questioning the financial condition of plaintiff Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., (IHHI) concerned a matter of public interest under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4), and that IHHI failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of its claims for defamation, breach of contract, tortious interference, and violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

We agree with these contentions and reverse the trial court's order.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2004, Tenet Healthcare Corporation sought to divest itself of a number of California hospitals it owned, including four in Orange County. Among those seeking to purchase the Orange County hospitals was IHHI, a holding company formed for this purpose. As its president concedes, IHHI is a â€

Description	Where company that acquired a county hospital defaulted on its line of credit and defendant sent e-mail message to medical executive committee members and several others concerning hospital's financial condition, e-mail message involved matter of public interest within meaning of anti-SLAPP statute. Company failed to show it would prevail on its claims of defamation, where e-mail suggested company was near bankruptcy but company did not provide evidence of finances showing that suggestion was false; breach of contract, where defendant's employer contractually agreed with company to publicly support it, but there was no evidence defendant personally waived his First Amendment rights; and tortious interference in business with third party, where defendant never sent e-mail to third party and company showed no evidence of defendant's intent to interfere in its negotiations with third party.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.