Comprehensive Health Assn. v. Barton CA4/3

Filed 9/27/13 Comprehensive Health Assn. v. Barton CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH ASSOCIATION, G047521 Cross-complainant and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00504127) v. OPINION TRISHA BARTON,

Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William M. Monroe, Judge. Affirmed. James T. Stroud for Cross-complainant and Appellant. Law Offices of Steven R. Young, Jim P. Mahacek and Steven R. Young for Cross-defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Cross-complainant and appellant Comprehensive Health Association (CHA) appeals from a judgment entered after the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and granted a special motion to strike its cross-complaint (the cross- complaint) for tortious interference with contract against cross-defendant and respondent Trisha Barton (Trisha) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16; anti-SLAPP motion; all further statutory references are to this code). CHA argues the activities on which the cross-complaint is based are not protected under section 425.16 and it showed a reasonable probability of prevailing on its claims. It further contends the cross-complaint sufficiently pleaded all the elements of a tortious interference with contract cause of action and the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. We conclude the activities that are the basis for the cross-complaint are protected under section 425.16 and CHA has not made out a prima facie case for its interference with contract claim. Therefore we affirm the grant of the anti-SLAPP motion. On that basis the demurrer is moot.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY