N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT STEVEN D. STEIN, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. LAR R Y B . ANDER SON, a

n individual, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt,
a nd TR I-C ITY HEALTHC ARE DISTR IC T, a C a l ifornia He a lthc are Distric t, De fe nda

nt. No. 14-55265 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02524-B TM
B GS
M EM O R ANDUM *

STEVEN D. STEIN, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. LAR R Y B . ANDER SON, a

n individual, De fe nda

nt, No. 14-55274 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02524-B TM
B GS 

# F IL ED
F EB 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.a

nd TR I-C ITY HEALTHC ARE DISTR IC T, a C a l ifornia He a lthc are Distric t, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. STEVEN D. STEIN, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TR I-C ITY HEALTHC ARE DISTR IC T, a C a l ifornia He a lthc are Distric t, De fe nda

nt,
a nd LAR R Y B . ANDER SON, a

n individual, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-56577

D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02524-B TM
B GS

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry Te d M oskowitz , C h ie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia

-2-B e fore : C ALLAHAN a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a nd R AKOFF, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Tri-C ity He a l thc are Distric t (“ Tri-C ity ” ) and La rry B . Ande rson (“ De fe nda

nts” ) e a c h a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the i r re spe c tive antiSLAPP m otions. 1 Ande rson a lso a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his m otion for pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt ba se d on qua lifie d im m unity . W e re vie wboth issue s de novo. Mindy

s C osme tic s, Inc . v . Dak

a r , 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th C ir. 2010) (antiSLAPP); C

are Partne rs, LLC v . Lashw ay , 545 F.3d 867, 875–76 (9th C ir. 2008) (qua lifie d im

m unity). 1. De fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to strikeSte in’ s a c tions for fa l se light a nd bla c klisting pursua

nt to C a lifornia ’ s a

nti-SLAPP sta

tute . Se e C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 425.16(b)(1). First, De fe nda nts m a de the re quire d “ thre shold showing” that Tri-

** The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion. 1 De fe nda nts a l so m ove d to strikepa ge s 1–8 a n d 11–159 of Ste ve n D. Ste i n’ s “ supple m e nta l e xc e rpts of re c ord” in c a s e num be r 14-55265. W e m ay

only c onside r “ the re c ord be fore the tria l judge whe n his de c i sion wa s m a de
. ” Unite d State s v . W alk e r , 601 F.2d 1051, 1054–55 (9th C ir. 1979); se e also Fe d. R . App. P. 10(a ); 9th C ir. R . 10-2. Ste in’ s atte m pt to “unila

te ra l ly supple m e nt the re c o rd on a ppe a l with e vide nc e not re v ie we d by the c ourt be low” without making a m otion or form a l re que st to this c ourt wa s a “ se rious viola

tion” of a ppe lla te proc e dure
. Se e Low ry v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024–25 (9th C ir. 2003) (quoting Tonry v . Se c . Ex pe rts, Inc
. , 20 F.3d 967, 974 (9th C ir. 1994), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Turne r v . Anhe use r-Busc h, Inc

. , 876 P.2d 1022 (C a l. 1994)). Thus, we grant De fe nda nts’ m o tion to strike

and a ward the m

the a ssoc i ate d c osts. -3-C ity ’ s sta

te m e nt a rose from a prote c te d a c tivity (the right of fre e spe e c h ). Se e Equilon Enter

s. v . C onsume r C

ause , Inc
. , 52 P.3d 685, 694 (C a l. 2002). Tri-C ity ’ s sta te m e nt wa s prote c te d unde r C a lifornia C ivil Proc e d

ure C ode se c tion 425.16(e )(2) a s a

sta te m e nt “ m a de in c onne c tion with a n issue unde r c onside ration
or re v ie w by

a . . . judic ia l body .” Se e C ity of C osta Me sa v . D’Ale

s sio Inv s., LLC , 154 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 698, 710 (C a l. C t. App. 2013). Se c ond, Ste in ha s not “ de m onstra te d a proba

bility of pre v a iling”on his
c la im s for fa l se light inva sion of priva c y an d bla c klisting. Se e Equilon Enters. , 52 P.3d at 694. Ste in’ s c la im s for fa lse light a n d bla c k listing c a

nnot pre va il, be c a

use the s tat e m e nt a

t issue wa s a

c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d sta

te m e nt of opinion. Se e Lie b e r man v . Fie

ge r , 338 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th C ir. 2003). No “re a sona ble fa c t finde r c ould c onc l u de that the c onte ste d sta te m e nt[, sa

y i ng som e one ha s a

long history of be ing a

disgruntle d e m

ploy e e , ] ‘ im

pl[ie s] an a sse rtion of obje c tive fa c t .’ ” P artington v. Bugliosi , 56 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th C ir. 1995) (se c ond
a lte ration in origina

l) (quoting Une lk

o C orp. v . Roone

y , 912 F.2d 1049, 1053 (9th C ir. 1990)); s e e also Lie be rman , 338 F.3d a t 1080 (listing fa

c tors this c ourt
e xam ine s in de te rm i ning whe the r a sta te m e nt im plie s a fa c tua l a s se rtion). Rathe r, the s tat e m e nt re a ds a s fie ry rhe t oric “ publishe d

in a . . . se tting in which the [ne w spa pe r re a de rs c ould] antic ipate e fforts by the pa rtie s to pe rsua de othe rs to -4-the i r positions.” Manufac ture d Home C mty s ., Inc . v . C

ty . of San Die

go , 544 F.3d 959, 963 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Gre gory v . Mc Donne l l Douglas C

orp. , 552 P.2d 425, 428 (C a l. 1976)). 2 B e c a use De fe nda

nts ha ve pre va ile d on the ir a

nti-SLAPP
m otion, they

are a l s o “ e ntitle d to re c ove r [the ir] attorne y [s’ ] fe e s a nd c o sts,” whic h
we re inc urre d in bringing the m otion to strike and its re late d a

ppe a l. C a l . C iv. Proc
. C ode § 425.16(c )(1); K

e t c hum v . Mose

s , 17 P.3d 735, 741, 747 (C a l. 2001). 2. Ande rson is prote c te d from lia bility unde r the first prong of the qua l ifie d im m unity doc trine
. Pe arson v . C

allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (“ First, a c ourt
m ust de c i de whe the r the fa c ts tha t a pla intiff ha s a lle ge d or shown m ake out a viola tion of a c onstitutiona

l right.”(c ita

tions omi tte d)). Ste in’ s c onstitutiona lly prote c te d prope rty inte re st in theright to c o ntinue d e m ploy m e nt c ould only

be viola te d if he wa s te rm inate d

without due

proc e ss. S

e e C le v e l and Bd. of Educ . v . Loude rmill , 470 U.S. 532, 538–39, 546 (1985) (prope rty inte re st a rising from
e m ploy m e nt a gre e m e nt tha

t sta te s a n e m ploy e e m a

y only be te rm inate d for c a

use ); FDIC v . He nde rson , 940 F.2d 465, 476 (9th C ir. 1991) (prope rty inte re st a rising from e m ploy m e nt a gre e m e nt tha

t sta te s a n e m ploy e e is e ntitle d to c ontinue d pa y
and be ne fits for a fixe d pe riod of tim e upon te rm ination without c a use ).

2 B e c a use we de te rm ine d

tha t Tri-C ity ’ s sta

te m e nt wa s a

non-a c tiona

ble sta te m e nt of opinion, we

ne e d n ot re a c h De fe nda

nts’ se c onda

ry argum e nts unde r the l itiga t ion privile ge an d

re porte r’ s privile ge .

-5-Ande rson did not viola t e Ste in’ s right to c ontinue d e m ploy m e nt by se nding the M arc h

2, 2012 le tte r a c c e pting Ste in’ s re s igna tion, be c a use doing so c ould not te rm inate Ste in’ s e m

ploy m e nt. (If Ste in’ s e m

ploy m e nt ha d te rm i nate d on tha t da te , the t e rm ination c ould ha

v e only re sulte d from Ste in re s igning, not Ande rson
a c c e pting his re signa

t ion.) Like wise , Ande rson did not viola te Ste i n’ s right to
c ontinue d e m

ploy m e nt by turning them atte r ove r to Tri-C i ty ’ s le ga l de pa rtm e nt
a fte r Ste in a s se rte d tha

t he ha d not re signe d . Fina lly , Ste in ha s not shown tha t Ande rson ha d a

ny involve m e nt in Tri-C ity ’ s ultim ate de c ision to term inate Ste in without first providing him a pre -te rm ination notic e or he aring. 3 The re fore , Ste in ha s not shown tha

t A n de rson viola

te d his c onstitutiona

l rights. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

3 W e note tha

t, a lthough wem

ust re a d the fa c t s in thelight most fa v ora ble to Ste i n, we are not re quire d to a c c e pt ba ld a sse rtions a s fa c t. Se e Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 56(c )(1)(A) (stat ing tha

t a pa rty ’ s a sse rtions m

u st be supporte d by

re fe re nc e s “ to pa rtic u la r parts of m ate ria ls in there c ord” ); Mitc he ll v

. Forsy th , 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“ Eve n

if the pla intiff’ s c om

pla int a de quate ly a lle ge s the c om m ission of a c ts tha t viola te d c le arly

e sta b l ishe d la w, the de fe n da

nt is e ntitle d to sum

m a ry judgm e nt if disc o v e ry

fa i l s to unc ove r e v ide nc e suffic ie nt to c re ate a ge nuine issue a s to whe the r the de fe n da nt in fa c t c om

m itte d those a c t s.” ); Sc how e nge rdt v

. Unite d State s , 944 F.2d 483, 489 (9th C ir. 1991) (e xpla i ning tha t “ infe re nc e and spe c ulation” do not e sta

b l ish fa c ts in a

m anne r suffic ie nt to ove rc om e a sum m ary judgm e nt m otion). -6-