Dible v. Haight Ashbery Free Clinics
Filed 7/12/06 Dible v. Haight Ashbery Free Clinics CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| LEAH DIBLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HAIGHT ASHBURY FREE CLINICS, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | A108303 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 425361) |
Plaintiff Leah Dible filed suit against her former employer, Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, Inc., and several individual defendants. The court sustained a demurrer to all of the complaint's causes of action without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of defendants. The court reasoned that the demurrer mooted defendants' special motion to strike the complaint as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy suit (SLAPP) (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16), and ordered the motion to strike off calendar. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment. Defendants cross-appeal from the order taking the motion to strike off calendar.
We reverse in part and affirm in part, finding that the court correctly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to all plaintiff's causes of action except for her claim of defamation, but that it abused its discretion by failing to allow plaintiff leave to amend the pleading relating to that claim. We also reverse the order dismissing the motion to strike, and remand the matter to the superior court to determine the merits of the motion, a determination that will require the court to decide if either party is entitled to costs and fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Background
According to a declaration filed by plaintiff in opposition to defendants' motion to strike, she is engaged in the profession of psychotherapy/social work, and, beginning in 1998, was employed by defendants in the nonlicensed position of psychiatric counselor. On September 26, 2002, plaintiff became involved in the case of a prison inmate who had a history of psychiatric contacts while in jail. Plaintiff and a social worker decided that the inmate should go to â€
