Hefczyc v. Rady Children's Hospital San Diego, No. D071264 (Nov. 11, 2017)
This is another “chargemaster” medical billing class action, almost identical to the Kendall case I wrote about a few weeks ago. In litigating class cert, the plaintiff raises and the court rejects many of the arguments raised in Kendall. In particular, the court holds that California really recognize the somewhat lower thresholds for class certification that apply under federal law when a plaintiff seeks only declaratory or injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). And since Plaintiff didn’t meet the burden to certify his class under state law requirements, class cert was properly denied.
Affirmed.
Showing posts with label rady children's hospital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rady children's hospital. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Thursday, April 9, 2015
But Causes of Action Don't Arise from Defenses
DeCambre v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, No. D063462 (D4d1, as modified Apr. 2, 2015)
Plaintiff is a doctor who got fired. She says it was racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The hospital says it was the culmination of its peer review process. The hospital brought an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the peer review process is protected activity, and the trial court granted it. That was wrong. In the anti-SLAPP analysis, plaintiff’s claims “arise from” her own claims. Here, that was the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, which are not protected activity. The peer review process, which unquestionably protected is, is only the hospital’s defense.
Plaintiff is a doctor who got fired. She says it was racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The hospital says it was the culmination of its peer review process. The hospital brought an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the peer review process is protected activity, and the trial court granted it. That was wrong. In the anti-SLAPP analysis, plaintiff’s claims “arise from” her own claims. Here, that was the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, which are not protected activity. The peer review process, which unquestionably protected is, is only the hospital’s defense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
That's Not a Debate
Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...