Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02156/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02156-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assualt,Slander

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 This case was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

 Although Plaintiff states he also moves for summary 1

adjudication, he has not specified discrete liability issues. 

 Plaintiff objects to particular evidence filed in opposition 2

to the motion. However, these evidentiary objections need not be

decided because the disputed evidence is not pertinent to the issues

decided herein.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAD REGER, ) 

) 2:05-cv-2156-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

PATRICK SMITH; SIERRA MEDICAL )

SERVICES ALLIANCE d/b/a SEMSA; )

REMSA, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment. Defendants oppose 1

the motion. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.2

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02156-GEB-GGH Document 44 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 The standards for summary judgment are well known and need 3

not be repeated here.

2

BACKGROUND 

For approximately twenty years, Plaintiff served as the

principal of Lassen Ambulance, a ground ambulance service provider in

Lassen County, California. (Pl.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 1.) 

Lassen Ambulance was the primary provider of ground ambulance services

in Lassen County. (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) In early December 2004,

Plaintiff ceased business operations and closed Lassen Ambulance. 

(Id.) In response, the County sought bids from ambulance companies

interested in becoming the exclusive provider of ground ambulance

service in Lassen County. (Id.) Defendants prepared a bid and

included the following statement in their cover letter: 

We have transferred patients from Banner Lassen

back to the local nursing home or their

residences. Apparently, the previous provider

declined to do this because of low reimbursement

potential, but it’s still the right thing to do

for these patients and we consider it to be our

job as EMS professionals. We have had many people

thank us for responding to this need. No thanks

are necessary, it’s the right thing to do!

(Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Based on this statement, Plaintiff filed this

action asserting a single “libel per se” claim against Defendants. 

(Id.) 

DISCUSSION3

Plaintiff argues that to prevail on his libel claim, he is

only required to prove that Defendants published a false, defamatory

statement of fact concerning Plaintiff, and that all these elements

are met. (Pl.’s Mot. at 8, 9.) The tort of “[d]efamation [concerns]

an invasion of the interest in reputation,” and “involves the

intentional publication of a statement of fact that is false,

Case 2:05-cv-02156-GEB-GGH Document 44 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Plaintiff states in his Reply Brief that “[f]or purposes of 4

this Motion, Plaintiff does not challenge whether providing the rides

are or are not the ‘right thing to do.’” (Reply at 2, 3.) Therefore,

(continued...)

3

unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes

special damages.” Smith v. Maldondo, 72 Cal. App. 4th 637, 645

(1999). If an alleged defamatory statement “‘is capable of two

meanings, one of which is harmless and the other libelous, and it is

alleged that the same was used and understood as conveying the latter

meaning, a cause of action is stated, and it is the province of the

jury to determine in which sense the language was . . . understood by

the readers of the [publication].’” Arno v. Stewart, 245 Cal. App. 2d

955, 960 (1966) (internal citation omitted). “To discern whether a

statement has a defamatory meaning, we interpret it from the

standpoint of the average reader, judging the statement not in

isolation, but within the context in which it is made.” Norse v.

Henry Holt and Co., 991 F.2d 563, 567 (9th Cir. 1993).

 Plaintiff argues that “[t]he statement is obviously

defamatory as it expressly states that the Plaintiff did not do [his

job] because of the prospect of minimal financial gain and no other

reason.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Defendants respond that the statement

has at least two meanings and “thus it is for the jury to determine

whether the comment was used in a defamatory sense.” (Defs.’ Opp’n

at 12.) Plaintiff counters that “[t]he statement on its face defames

the Plaintiff in its business and does not include words that have

dual meaning to the average reader.” (Pl.’s Reply at 4.) Plaintiff

explains that “the crux of the defamatory statement is the false

accusation that the Plaintiff failed to transfer patients because of

‘low reimbursement potential.’” (Id. at 2.) 4

Case 2:05-cv-02156-GEB-GGH Document 44 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 (...continued) 4

this portion of the statement is not considered in deciding

Plaintiff’s motion.

4

The portion of the statement at issue could be reasonably

interpreted to mean that the referenced low reimbursement potential

was a legitimate business reason for not providing the transportation;

even Plaintiff admits that “in any business you have to be concerned

about reimbursement potential.” (Conal Doyle Decl., Ex. C.) 

Alternatively, as Plaintiff argues, a reader could interpret the

statement as an implication that Plaintiff was “unethical.” (See

Pl.’s Mot. at 10 (stating that the “statement . . . implies that the

Plaintiff was unethical and chose profit over service”).) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Dated: December 8, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02156-GEB-GGH Document 44 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 4