Gehrs v. Gibson 12/21/01 CA1/2

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2002 » Gehrs v. Gibson 12/21/01 CA1/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A092215

Case Date: 03/14/2002

Preview:Filed 12/12/01

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO

RICHARD GEHRS, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD GOLDEN GATE et al., Cross-complainants and Respondents. A092215 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 405649)

I. INTRODUCTION Rossi Foti filed the underlying action against Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (Planned Parenthood) and others, including Gabriela Gibson, an employee of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood filed a cross-complaint against Foti, Louie Garibaldi, Jeannette Garibaldi and Richard Gehrs (cross-defendants). The cross-complaint was amended several times and the current cross-complaint--the third amended crosscomplaint--includes claims by Gibson as well as Planned Parenthood against Gehrs. Gehrs filed a motion to strike the third amended cross-complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 The motion included a request for attorney fees. The trial court denied the motion as to all causes of action of the third amended cross-

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 1

complaint, and denied Gehrs' request for attorney fees. This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court's ruling with respect to Planned Parenthood's claims, but reverse the trial court's ruling with respect to Gibson's claims. We therefore remand with instructions to grant the motion to strike as to Gibson's claims and to reconsider the issue of whether Gehrs is entitled to attorney fees. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Given the limited scope of this appeal, we focus only on the third amended crosscomplaint and Gehrs' special motion to strike. Planned Parenthood operates health centers in the City of San Mateo, Daly City, and Redwood City (collectively, Health Centers). The third amended cross-complaint includes two causes of action brought by Planned Parenthood against Foti, the Garibaldis, Gehrs, and unnamed Does, based on their alleged conduct while outside the San Mateo, Redwood City and now-closed Menlo Park health centers. The first cause of action is based on cross-defendants' alleged invasion of the constitutional right to privacy enjoyed by Planned Parenthood's patients. The second cause of action alleges intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, based on cross-defendants' interference with Planned Parenthood's business relations with its patients. Both causes of action seek injunctive relief, an order specifying the amount of civil damages that will be due if a cross-defendant violates the injunction, and attorney fees and costs to the extent authorized by law. The third amended cross-complaint also includes four causes of action brought by Gibson against Gehrs. While Planned Parenthood's claims are based on crossdefendants' general activities outside the Health Centers, Gibson's claims focus on the specific events of July 18, 1998. On that date, Gibson and Foti came into physical contact with each other while outside the San Mateo health center. Gibson contends that she merely brushed against Foti. Gehrs and Foti reported to the police, however, that Gibson forcefully hit Foti with her shoulder, causing him to nearly fall. Gibson was 2

arrested for assault, although the District Attorney declined to file charges. Gibson seeks damages for these events under four theories: abuse of process, false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy. Gehrs filed a special motion to strike the third amended cross-complaint pursuant to section 425.16 and requested attorney fees as provided for in that section. Gehrs contended that the claims of Planned Parenthood and Gibson come within the ambit of section 425.16 and that they did not have a probability of succeeding on the merits. As noted above, the trial court denied Gehrs' motion in its entirety. III. DISCUSSION A. Section 425.16 Section 425.16 authorizes a special motion to strike "[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue . . . ." (

Download Gehrs v. Gibson 12/21/01 CA1/2.pdf