Barker v. Fox & Assocs.
Decision Date | 10 September 2015 |
Docket Number | A142373 |
Citation | 240 Cal.App.4th 333,192 Cal.Rptr.3d 511 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Alexander BARKER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FOX & ASSOCIATES et al., Defendants and Appellants |
For Defendant and Appellant: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Reuben B. Jacobson, San Francisco, Jeffry A. Miller, and Brittany H. Bartold, San Diego.
For Defendant and Appellant, Deborah Wagner: Beyers Costin Simon, Bob Haroche, Santa Rosa and Suzanne K. Babb.
For Plaintiff and Respondent: Law Offices Of Freeman & Freeman, Rebecca J. Freeman, Matthew C. Freeman, Santa Rosa, and Molly A. Gilardi.
Richman, J.Alexander Barker sued three defendants for defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Barker had met his burden under step two of the anti-SLAPP analysis. We review the issue de novo, and conclude otherwise, that Barker has not met his burden to show that his complaint is legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing to support a favorable judgment. We thus reverse.
BACKGROUND
The Factual Setting
An understanding of the factual background predating Barker's complaint is necessary to put the matter in context, and we begin with that background.
Allison McBride (Allison), an elderly woman, suffered from dementia for many years. Allison had two daughters, Lucy McBride Olsen (Olsen) and Cameron Volker (Volker).1
For several years, a dedicated team of paid caregivers—described by Olsen as “loving friends who knew [Allison] and cared for her deeply”—tended to Allison's care; the team was called “Allison's Angels.” As described in Barker's brief, Diane Senia, a longtime friend of Allison Barker was one of Allison's Angels who cared for Allison for some three and one-half years. Nancy Barker (Nancy), Barker's mother, was another.
At some point, a rift developed between Allison's daughters, who could not agree on all aspects of their mother's care. They agreed to submit to voluntary mediation, the upshot of which was an agreement to the appointment of a conservator. And on November 14, 2012, the Sonoma County Superior Court entered an “Order on Stipulation and Agreement” appointing Deborah L. Wagner (Wagner) conservator of the person and estate of Allison. That order provided in part as follows:
Wagner retained many, if not all, of Allison's Angels, including Barker and Nancy. But Wagner also made a number of changes to Allison's care, including, for example, recommending that caregivers move into Allison's home during their shifts because she needed closer monitoring as her health deteriorated. Wagner also began paying Allison's caregivers legitimately and reporting their wages as employees.
One other thing Wagner did was to hire Cheryl Fox (Fox) to act as Allison's case manager. Fox is a registered nurse and the president and CEO of Fox & Associates, which employs nurses and health care professionals to provide case management and advocacy services for homebound clients.
The significance—and effect—of Wagner's practices was the subject of disagreement, and we quote from two of the declarations filed below. As Wagner put it: Barker “was part of a team of caregivers already in place, and caring for Ms. McBride, when I was appointed conservator. His mother, Nancy Barker, was also one of Ms. McBride's caregivers. None of the caregivers were nurses. In fact, these individuals were friends and associates in the community that Ms. McBride's relatives had assembled to provide round the clock care for her. They all cared about Ms. McBride and felt close to her, and I wanted them to be able to continue working for Ms. McBride if it served her best interests.
Allison's daughter Olsen saw it this way:
Suffice it to say that Wagner's entry into the picture caused some concern, and perhaps friction. And then came the incident leading to the litigation here: on June 21, 2013, while being tended to by Carly Newell, an employee of Fox, Allison “became combative and a quarrel resulted,” causing injuries to Allison.
On June 24, Olsen sent Wagner a lengthy e-mail which, as Olsen described it, expressed her “concern about the fact that [an Allison Angel] had arrived to find [Allison] covered with bruises and emotionally distraught.”
The next day, Olsen received a copy of an e-mail sent by Fox to Wagner, which e-mail provided in its entirety as follows:
“Good Afternoon,
There were six other “cc” recipients of Fox's e-mail besides Olsen: Allison's other daughter; Wagner's attorney; two employees of Fox & Associates; and two of Allison's Angels, one of whom was Nancy.
Fox's e-mail was sent at 4:23 p.m. on June 25.
At 8:17 p.m. that evening, Barker's mother, Nancy, sent an e-mail to Fox. It read as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.
... ... was not outrageous as 64 Cal.App.5th 148 a matter of law].) That said, whether conduct is outrageous is " usually a question of fact." ( Barker v. Fox & Associates (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 356, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 511.) Our Supreme Court holds that an IIED claim can stem from the use of ... ...
- Pasadena Police Officers Ass'n v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
-
Tae Seog Lee v. Jong Yun Kim
... ... In determining whether malice exists, we must accept as true the evidence favorable to the plaintiff. ( Barker v. Fox & Associates (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 348, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 511.) Further, a reviewing court may consider not only facts supported by ... ...
-
Armin v. Riverside Cmty. Hosp.
... ... Accordingly, we resolve conflicts and inferences in the record in favor of the plaintiff. ( Barker v. Fox & Associates (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 347348, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 511.) Here, the peer review process was not completed. If there is a spin to ... ...
-
Defamation and privacy
...damage as a proximate DEFAMATION & PRIVACY §12-1:28 California Causes of Action 12-6 result thereof.” Barker v. Fox & Associates 240 Cal. App.4th 333, 351 (2015).Cal. Civ. Code §45a “If, as here, the statement is alleged to be libelous per se because the defamatory meaning is plain on its f......