{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-11-03", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:fae3c7", "proof": "sha256:8ec5a511a9ceb0f28965f0261df9a5213ae9794da1c8c35303caf07d26e80b9f", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Filed 9/16/26", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "DIVISION TWO", "paragraphs": [ "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11" ] }, { "title": "E084185", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Super.Ct.No. RIC1717505)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [ "para_15", "para_16" ] }, { "title": "Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade, Lee Jackson and Mayo L. Makarczyk, for", "paragraphs": [ "para_18", "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiff Sunil Sujan, a physician who formerly practiced medicine with defendant", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Corona Regional Medical Center (CRMC), filed this lawsuit alleging CRMC and three", "paragraphs": [ "para_23" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Bershawi, M.D.) engaged in a concerted scheme to defame him and ruin his professional", "paragraphs": [ "para_26", "para_27" ] }, { "title": "Sujan appeals from the judgment entered for defendants after the trial court", "paragraphs": [ "para_29", "para_30" ] }, { "title": "Sujan, he was excused from exhausting his remedies in the available peer review process", "paragraphs": [ "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "CRMC report the suspension to the California Medical Board, it rendered futile any relief", "paragraphs": [ "para_35", "para_36", "para_37" ] }, { "title": "Business and Professions Code1 section 809.9, which provides for attorney fees in", "paragraphs": [ "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In a cross-appeal from the attorney fees order, defendants argue the trial court", "paragraphs": [ "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51" ] }, { "title": "On Sujan’s appeal, we conclude (1) he has not met his burden of establishing with", "paragraphs": [ "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56" ] }, { "title": "On defendants’ cross-appeal, we conclude the trial court correctly denied the", "paragraphs": [ "para_58", "para_59", "para_60" ] }, { "title": "FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2", "paragraphs": [ "para_62" ] }, { "title": "Sujan has been a board certified physician for over 20 years. He had admitting", "paragraphs": [ "para_64" ] }, { "title": "2 We take much of the background to this lawsuit from our decision in a prior", "paragraphs": [ "para_66", "para_67" ] }, { "title": "4", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2016. In an introductory paragraph to his complaint, Sujan claimed he was damaged by", "paragraphs": [ "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74" ] }, { "title": "Sujan alleged he provided his patients at CRMC “with a high degree of care and", "paragraphs": [ "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82" ] }, { "title": "According to Sujan, the individual defendants responded to his competition and", "paragraphs": [ "para_84", "para_85" ] }, { "title": "Sujan’s reputation through CRMC’s peer review process “by falsely depicting him as", "paragraphs": [ "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90" ] }, { "title": "3.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "5", "paragraphs": [ "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97" ] }, { "title": "Sujan alleged the individual defendants organized members of the physician and", "paragraphs": [ "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102" ] }, { "title": "CRMC’s peer review criteria, it is submitted to the relevant departmental quality review", "paragraphs": [ "para_104", "para_105", "para_106" ] }, { "title": "According to Sujan, the allegations in the 86 MIDAS reports filed against him", "paragraphs": [ "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113" ] }, { "title": "6", "paragraphs": [ "para_115", "para_116", "para_117" ] }, { "title": "In June 2016, a patient died of heart failure while under Sujan’s care. The patient", "paragraphs": [ "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126" ] }, { "title": "Some of Sujan’s colleagues who were familiar with his practice, including the", "paragraphs": [ "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132" ] }, { "title": "3 Sujan does not expressly allege the director of risk management found none of", "paragraphs": [ "para_134", "para_135" ] }, { "title": "7", "paragraphs": [ "para_137", "para_138" ] }, { "title": "On July 7, 2016, the MEC voted to maintain the summary suspension of Sujan’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145" ] }, { "title": "The detailed list of conditions for lifting Sujan’s suspension included in the", "paragraphs": [ "para_147" ] }, { "title": "(1) Sujan was to “comply fully with all Medical Staff bylaws and rules,”", "paragraphs": [ "para_149" ] }, { "title": "(2) he was to sign an updated code of conduct within 10 days;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(3) he was to provide his office, beeper, cellular, and home phone numbers", "paragraphs": [ "para_152", "para_153" ] }, { "title": "(4) he was to identify one or more members of the medical staff in good", "paragraphs": [ "para_155", "para_156" ] }, { "title": "8", "paragraphs": [ "para_158", "para_159" ] }, { "title": "(5) he was to “take all steps necessary to assure that he or his backup", "paragraphs": [ "para_161", "para_162" ] }, { "title": "(6) he was to complete within 90 days, at his own expense, a training", "paragraphs": [ "para_164", "para_165" ] }, { "title": "(7) he was to ensure that he or his backup would see and provide care to", "paragraphs": [ "para_167", "para_168", "para_169" ] }, { "title": "(8) he was to complete, at his own expense, training programs on medical", "paragraphs": [ "para_171" ] }, { "title": "(9) he was to personally respond in writing to all letters of concern sent to", "paragraphs": [ "para_173", "para_174" ] }, { "title": "(10) he was to identify, in consultation with the chair of the department of", "paragraphs": [ "para_176" ] }, { "title": "9", "paragraphs": [ "para_178", "para_179" ] }, { "title": "(11) he was not to retaliate, by word or deed, against anyone who had", "paragraphs": [ "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184" ] }, { "title": "The agreement provided the MEC would promptly review any report of a violation", "paragraphs": [ "para_186", "para_187", "para_188" ] }, { "title": "MEC deem[ed] reasonable.” If the MEC reinstated the summary suspension or took", "paragraphs": [ "para_190", "para_191" ] }, { "title": "Sujan disagreed with the factual basis of his suspension, which was based on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_193", "para_194" ] }, { "title": "Sujan believed he had “no reasonable choice” but to sign the agreement because", "paragraphs": [ "para_196" ] }, { "title": "Board and the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) with potentially “ruinous”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "4 The agreement provided the imposition of a mentorship “will not be considered", "paragraphs": [ "para_199" ] }, { "title": "10", "paragraphs": [ "para_201" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, he signed the agreement on July 13, 2016. Shortly thereafter, he voluntarily", "paragraphs": [ "para_203" ] }, { "title": "In the summer of 2017, Sujan was offered a position as a full-time hospitalist with", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Good Samaritan Hospital, contingent on the hospital verifying his dates of employment at", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "CRMC. After Good Samaritan contacted CRMC for verification, CRMC e-mailed Sujan", "paragraphs": [ "para_207" ] }, { "title": "Samaritan unless Sujan signed an attached release, in which he would agree to release", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "CRMC from all claims related to its transmission of the verification. Attached to the e-", "paragraphs": [ "para_210", "para_211", "para_212" ] }, { "title": "Sujan’s summary suspension. Sujan refused to sign the release. As of the date of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_214", "para_215" ] }, { "title": "Sujan alleged he suffered mental, emotional, and physical injury from defendants’", "paragraphs": [ "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221" ] }, { "title": "11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In a first cause of action for conversion, Sujan alleged the records and protected", "paragraphs": [ "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229" ] }, { "title": "Sujan’s second cause of action for intentional interference with a prospective", "paragraphs": [ "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237" ] }, { "title": "The third cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations", "paragraphs": [ "para_239" ] }, { "title": "Defendants filed false and defamatory MIDAS reports designed to ruin Sujan’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_241", "para_242", "para_243" ] }, { "title": "12", "paragraphs": [ "para_245", "para_246" ] }, { "title": "In a fourth cause of action, Sujan alleged defendants conspired and aided and", "paragraphs": [ "para_248", "para_249" ] }, { "title": "Sujan’s fifth cause of action for defamation alleged the MIDAS reports filed at", "paragraphs": [ "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254" ] }, { "title": "In his sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Sujan", "paragraphs": [ "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260" ] }, { "title": "Finally, the seventh cause of action alleged “defendants’ acts and omissions”", "paragraphs": [ "para_262" ] }, { "title": "Sujan alleged defendants caused him irreparable and incalculable harm, including", "paragraphs": [ "para_264", "para_265" ] }, { "title": "13", "paragraphs": [ "para_267", "para_268" ] }, { "title": "Defendants answered and, among other affirmative defenses, pleaded Sujan failed", "paragraphs": [ "para_270" ] }, { "title": "SLAPP motions to dismiss, which the trial court denied. We affirmed the denials. (Sujan", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "I, supra, E071217.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_273" ] }, { "title": "In an amended motion for summary judgment, defendants argued, inter alia, they", "paragraphs": [ "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284" ] }, { "title": "5 Sujan does not argue the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_286", "para_287" ] }, { "title": "14", "paragraphs": [ "para_289", "para_290" ] }, { "title": "Section 8.1-5 requires all “members . . . to exhaust all remedies provided in this", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Article or elsewhere in medical staff bylaws, rules and regulations or policies before", "paragraphs": [ "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302" ] }, { "title": "Sujan did not dispute that he did not avail himself of the available peer review", "paragraphs": [ "para_304", "para_305" ] }, { "title": "(Joel), Sujan argued he could not have obtained more relief through the peer review", "paragraphs": [ "para_307", "para_308", "para_309" ] }, { "title": "15", "paragraphs": [ "para_311", "para_312" ] }, { "title": "Board, which I believed would be extremely harmful to my career as a physician.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The trial court granted the motion, finding Sujan was not excused from exhausting", "paragraphs": [ "para_315" ] }, { "title": "Joel, Dr. Sujan did not obtain a full reinstatement and therefore did not achieve the", "paragraphs": [ "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321" ] }, { "title": "Relying on the contractual attorney fee provision in the bylaws, defendants filed a", "paragraphs": [ "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330" ] }, { "title": "16", "paragraphs": [ "para_332", "para_333" ] }, { "title": "In its tentative ruling granting the motion in part and denying it in part, the trial", "paragraphs": [ "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349" ] }, { "title": "17", "paragraphs": [ "para_351" ] }, { "title": "DISCUSSION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A. The Trial Court Correctly Granted Summary Judgment for Defendants on", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Sujan’s Causes of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic", "paragraphs": [ "para_355" ] }, { "title": "Sujan argues the trial court erred in ruling he was required to exhaust his", "paragraphs": [ "para_357", "para_358", "para_359" ] }, { "title": "CRMC to reinstate his admitting privileges avoided the need for his suspension to be", "paragraphs": [ "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369" ] }, { "title": "(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar).) A defendant", "paragraphs": [ "para_371" ] }, { "title": "18", "paragraphs": [ "para_373", "para_374" ] }, { "title": "Cal.App.5th 1026, 1033 (Gonzalez).)", "paragraphs": [ "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380" ] }, { "title": "Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477.) Ultimately, the moving party ‘bears the burden of", "paragraphs": [ "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392" ] }, { "title": "19", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2. Peer Review and the Requirement That Physicians Exhaust", "paragraphs": [ "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407" ] }, { "title": "Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 616 (Unnamed Physician).)", "paragraphs": [ "para_409", "para_410" ] }, { "title": "Improvement Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq.), which was passed to encourage", "paragraphs": [ "para_412", "para_413", "para_414" ] }, { "title": "20", "paragraphs": [ "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421" ] }, { "title": "Cal.App.4th at pp. 616-617, fn. omitted.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432" ] }, { "title": "Physician, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 617.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_434", "para_435" ] }, { "title": "21", "paragraphs": [ "para_437" ] }, { "title": "Proc., § 1094.5.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448" ] }, { "title": "Physicians v. Medical Executive Com. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 503, 511, italics omitted", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Eight Unnamed Physicians).)", "paragraphs": [ "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455" ] }, { "title": "Whereas exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing", "paragraphs": [ "para_457" ] }, { "title": "22", "paragraphs": [ "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479" ] }, { "title": "23", "paragraphs": [ "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487" ] }, { "title": "Cal.App.4th at p. 511, quoting Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (2005)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "128 Cal.App.4th 85, 100, fn. 13.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3. Sujan Has Not Established He Was Exempt From Exhausting His", "paragraphs": [ "para_491" ] }, { "title": "The party alleging they are not required to exhaust applicable administrative", "paragraphs": [ "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498" ] }, { "title": "As indicated, ante, section 8.1-5 of the bylaws requires all “members . . . to", "paragraphs": [ "para_500", "para_501" ] }, { "title": "24", "paragraphs": [ "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506" ] }, { "title": "1313; accord, Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080-1081.) The party asserting this", "paragraphs": [ "para_509", "para_510", "para_511" ] }, { "title": "(Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1115, 1130; see Upshaw", "paragraphs": [ "para_513", "para_514", "para_515" ] }, { "title": "Sujan does not explicitly contend the MEC had already declared what it would", "paragraphs": [ "para_517" ] }, { "title": "Cal.App.4th 360, Sujan argues the agreement to lift his summary suspension and reinstate", "paragraphs": [ "para_519", "para_520" ] }, { "title": "In Joel, a physician had his hospital privileges summarily suspended for failing to", "paragraphs": [ "para_522", "para_523" ] }, { "title": "25", "paragraphs": [ "para_525", "para_526" ] }, { "title": "(Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 363-364.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The hospital sent the physician a notice of the charges against him and scheduled a", "paragraphs": [ "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543" ] }, { "title": "On appeal, the court addressed whether the doctrine of administrative exhaustion", "paragraphs": [ "para_545" ] }, { "title": "26", "paragraphs": [ "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552" ] }, { "title": "The court found the settlement to reinstate the physician’s hospital privileges", "paragraphs": [ "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567" ] }, { "title": "27", "paragraphs": [ "para_569", "para_570", "para_571" ] }, { "title": "Cal.App.4th at p. 367.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For the third policy consideration—“the potential for the administrative", "paragraphs": [ "para_574", "para_575", "para_576" ] }, { "title": "(Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 367-368.) “Thus, even if the peer review process", "paragraphs": [ "para_578", "para_579" ] }, { "title": "Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 476.) Therefore, Westlake is factually inapposite and its", "paragraphs": [ "para_581", "para_582" ] }, { "title": "Last, the court indicated, “we do not see any judicial efficiency to be gained in", "paragraphs": [ "para_584", "para_585" ] }, { "title": "Cal.App.4th at p. 369.) The court rejected the hospital’s suggestion that permitting the", "paragraphs": [ "para_587", "para_588", "para_589" ] }, { "title": "28", "paragraphs": [ "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the physician “that further pursuit of an", "paragraphs": [ "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602" ] }, { "title": "Joel is distinguishable. The appellate court took pains to emphasize the settlement", "paragraphs": [ "para_604" ] }, { "title": "(Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 367, italics added.) Instead, the hospital gave the", "paragraphs": [ "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611" ] }, { "title": "29", "paragraphs": [ "para_613", "para_614", "para_615" ] }, { "title": "In contrast, the settlement to lift Sujan’s summary suspension was heavily", "paragraphs": [ "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626" ] }, { "title": "As he did in the trial court, Sujan argues his “primary motive” in signing the", "paragraphs": [ "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633" ] }, { "title": "30", "paragraphs": [ "para_635" ] }, { "title": "Transportation Authority, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1048.) But, other than his own", "paragraphs": [ "para_637", "para_638", "para_639" ] }, { "title": "Cir. 2019) 936 F.3d 841, 845 [Plaintiff’s expert witnesses testified a report to the NPDB", "paragraphs": [ "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645" ] }, { "title": "In his brief, Sujan cites the decision in Mileikowsy v West Hills Hospital &", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Medical Center (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1259. There, the Supreme Court suggested that a", "paragraphs": [ "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655" ] }, { "title": "31", "paragraphs": [ "para_657", "para_658", "para_659" ] }, { "title": "2007, No. C 07-02486 WHA) 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66032 (Ennix) to be instructive.7 In", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Ennix, a heart surgeon was summarily suspended by the president of the hospital’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669" ] }, { "title": "6 In addition, Sujan cites a law review comment that claims a report to the NPDB", "paragraphs": [ "para_671" ] }, { "title": "Henhouse: How the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 and State Peer", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Review Protection Statutes Have Helped Protect Bad Faith Peer Review in the Medical", "paragraphs": [ "para_674" ] }, { "title": "Blacklisted: The Constitutionality of The Federal System for Publishing Reports of", "paragraphs": [ "para_676" ] }, { "title": "The article appears to have based its claim of blacklisting on anecdotal evidence and does", "paragraphs": [ "para_678", "para_679" ] }, { "title": "7 “The prohibition on citing unpublished California decisions (Cal. Rules of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court, rule 8.1115(a)) does not apply to unpublished decisions from the lower federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_682", "para_683", "para_684" ] }, { "title": "32", "paragraphs": [ "para_686", "para_687", "para_688", "para_689", "para_690", "para_691", "para_692", "para_693", "para_694" ] }, { "title": "When the surgeon sued in federal district court for damages, the hospital and", "paragraphs": [ "para_696", "para_697" ] }, { "title": "U.S. Dist. Lexis 66032 at p. *9.) The district court treated the motion to dismiss as a", "paragraphs": [ "para_699" ] }, { "title": "Ninth Circuit authority a physician whose staff privileges are modified because of a", "paragraphs": [ "para_701", "para_702" ] }, { "title": "Cal.3d 465 & Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital (9th Cir. 1988) 844 F.2d 646.) Although", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "33", "paragraphs": [ "para_705", "para_706" ] }, { "title": "The district court distinguished Joel. “The key to the holding [in Joel] was that", "paragraphs": [ "para_708", "para_709", "para_710", "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiff does not dispute that full reinstatement could have been sought had he exercised", "paragraphs": [ "para_718", "para_719", "para_720" ] }, { "title": "Joel is inapplicable here.” (Ennix, at pp. *19-*20.) Therefore, the district court granted", "paragraphs": [ "para_722" ] }, { "title": "8 The surgeon in Ennix also argued the exhaustion doctrine did not apply to him", "paragraphs": [ "para_724", "para_725" ] }, { "title": "34", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Like the surgeon in Ennix, Sujan’s agreement to lift his summary suspension and", "paragraphs": [ "para_728" ] }, { "title": "Lexis 66032 at p. *20.) Therefore, like the district court in Ennix, we find the futility", "paragraphs": [ "para_730" ] }, { "title": "Sujan contends the trial court erred because it focused solely on Joel’s analysis of", "paragraphs": [ "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736" ] }, { "title": "State Farm General Ins. Co. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 243, 255, quoting Skillin v. Rady", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Children’s Hospital & Health Center (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 35, 43.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Overall, we find the remaining Westlake considerations do not support Sujan’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_740", "para_741", "para_742", "para_743", "para_744", "para_745", "para_746" ] }, { "title": "35", "paragraphs": [ "para_748", "para_749" ] }, { "title": "Again, Joel is distinguishable. The settlement in that case mitigated the", "paragraphs": [ "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757", "para_758", "para_759", "para_760" ] }, { "title": "To repeat, in Joel the appellate court found that requiring the physician to exhaust his", "paragraphs": [ "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768" ] }, { "title": "36", "paragraphs": [ "para_770", "para_771" ] }, { "title": "In contrast, the agreement here—with its restatement of the reasons for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_773", "para_774", "para_775", "para_776", "para_777", "para_778" ] }, { "title": "Finally, Sujan argues the third consideration—the potential of the administrative", "paragraphs": [ "para_780", "para_781", "para_782", "para_783" ] }, { "title": "68 Cal.App.4th at pages 367-368, overstated the importance of Evidence Code section", "paragraphs": [ "para_785" ] }, { "title": "As defendants contend, the bar on discovery found in Evidence Code section 1157", "paragraphs": [ "para_787", "para_788", "para_789", "para_790" ] }, { "title": "37", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1477, 1481 [holding the “narrow exception to", "paragraphs": [ "para_793", "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797" ] }, { "title": "Joel did not hold that all four Westlake considerations must be satisfied before requiring", "paragraphs": [ "para_799" ] }, { "title": "In sum, we hold Sujan has not met his burden of demonstrating that exhaustion of", "paragraphs": [ "para_801", "para_802" ] }, { "title": "B. Defendants Are Entitled to Recover Attorney Fees from Sujan as Provided", "paragraphs": [ "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812" ] }, { "title": "38", "paragraphs": [ "para_814", "para_815", "para_816", "para_817", "para_818" ] }, { "title": "667, 674-675.) “‘The normal rules of appellate review apply to an order granting or", "paragraphs": [ "para_820", "para_821", "para_822", "para_823" ] }, { "title": "1. Attorney Fees in this Lawsuit Are Governed by the Contractual Fee", "paragraphs": [ "para_825", "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830", "para_831", "para_832", "para_833", "para_834" ] }, { "title": "39", "paragraphs": [ "para_836", "para_837" ] }, { "title": "606 (Santisas).)” (Martinez v. SAI Long Beach B, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 367, 373-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "374.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "As noted, ante, in addition to requiring a physician to exhaust review and appeal", "paragraphs": [ "para_841", "para_842", "para_843", "para_844", "para_845", "para_846", "para_847", "para_848", "para_849" ] }, { "title": "In its order, the trial court correctly observed that section 809.9 does not “indicate", "paragraphs": [ "para_851" ] }, { "title": "9 There is no question the bylaws and the fee provision contained therein were", "paragraphs": [ "para_853", "para_854", "para_855" ] }, { "title": "Staff, intending to be legally bound, agree that these Bylaws shall constitute part of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_857", "para_858" ] }, { "title": "182 Cal.App.4th 729, 753 [nearly identical language in hospital bylaws “removed any", "paragraphs": [ "para_860", "para_861" ] }, { "title": "40", "paragraphs": [ "para_863", "para_864", "para_865", "para_866", "para_867", "para_868", "para_869", "para_870", "para_871", "para_872", "para_873", "para_874", "para_875", "para_876" ] }, { "title": "Cartograph, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1, 11, quoting County of Sacramento v. Sandison", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 646, 651, italics added.) To determine whether a statutory", "paragraphs": [ "para_879", "para_880", "para_881", "para_882", "para_883" ] }, { "title": "41", "paragraphs": [ "para_885" ] }, { "title": "Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs.” [Citations.]", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In reading statutes, we are mindful that words are to be given their plain and", "paragraphs": [ "para_888" ] }, { "title": "640.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "On its face, section 809.9 does not apply to every lawsuit challenging the", "paragraphs": [ "para_891", "para_892" ] }, { "title": "Charter Suburban Hospital (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1480-1481, fn. omitted; id. at", "paragraphs": [ "para_894", "para_895", "para_896", "para_897", "para_898", "para_899" ] }, { "title": "Directors of PrimeCare Medical Network, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1163, 1177, fn. 8;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Asiryan v. Medical Staff of Glendale Adventist Medical Center (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "947, 957.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Sujan agreed to the settlement less than 14 days after his summary suspension", "paragraphs": [ "para_904" ] }, { "title": "Relying on the legislative history of section 809.9, however, Sujan contends there is no", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "42", "paragraphs": [ "para_907", "para_908", "para_909", "para_910" ] }, { "title": "Cal.3d 112, 121.) And, the Supreme Court has “consistently stated that when statutory", "paragraphs": [ "para_912" ] }, { "title": "(Bonnell v. Medical Board (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1255, 1264.) Because Sujan’s summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_914", "para_915" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, we need not decide whether that statute conflicts with the contractual fee", "paragraphs": [ "para_917" ] }, { "title": "Last, Sujan argues in passing that interpreting section 809.9 to not apply to cases", "paragraphs": [ "para_919", "para_920", "para_921", "para_922", "para_923" ] }, { "title": "Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226, 231.) But ‘[w]e must exercise caution using the “absurd", "paragraphs": [ "para_925", "para_926", "para_927" ] }, { "title": "43", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 574, 588.)” (PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Internat., Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 187-188 (PGA West).)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "To repeat, section 809.9 is clear on its face that statutory attorney fees are only", "paragraphs": [ "para_932", "para_933", "para_934", "para_935" ] }, { "title": "(Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 640; PGA West, supra, 14", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cal.App.5th 156 at p. 188.) Nor do we find any absurdity in that result. The Legislature", "paragraphs": [ "para_938", "para_939", "para_940", "para_941", "para_942", "para_943", "para_944", "para_945", "para_946", "para_947" ] }, { "title": "The trial court rejected outright Sujan’s argument that the fee provision was an", "paragraphs": [ "para_949" ] }, { "title": "44", "paragraphs": [ "para_951", "para_952", "para_953", "para_954", "para_955" ] }, { "title": "(2018) 5 Cal.5th 966, 978-979; Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cal.App.4th 619, 638.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_958", "para_959", "para_960" ] }, { "title": "([Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013)] 57 Cal.4th [1109,] 1133.) Under this", "paragraphs": [ "para_962", "para_963", "para_964", "para_965", "para_966", "para_967" ] }, { "title": "(2012) 55 Cal.4th [223,] 246 [(Pinnacle)].)” (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, supra, 8 Cal.5th at", "paragraphs": [ "para_969", "para_970", "para_971" ] }, { "title": "45", "paragraphs": [ "para_973", "para_974", "para_975", "para_976" ] }, { "title": "Adhesion contracts are subject to scrutiny because they are ‘not the result of freedom or", "paragraphs": [ "para_978", "para_979", "para_980" ] }, { "title": "16 Cal.5th 478, 492-493 (Ramirez).)", "paragraphs": [ "para_982", "para_983", "para_984", "para_985", "para_986", "para_987", "para_988" ] }, { "title": "Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 912 (Sanchez).)", "paragraphs": [ "para_990", "para_991" ] }, { "title": "(Ramirez, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 493.) Courts ‘apply a sliding scale analysis under which", "paragraphs": [ "para_993" ] }, { "title": "46", "paragraphs": [ "para_995", "para_996", "para_997", "para_998" ] }, { "title": "102 Cal.App.5th 312, 321.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "With respect to the procedural element of unconscionability, section 5.1 of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1001", "para_1002", "para_1003", "para_1004", "para_1005", "para_1006", "para_1007", "para_1008", "para_1009" ] }, { "title": "As for the substantive element, in his opposition Sujan argued the fee provision in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1011", "para_1012" ] }, { "title": "1717 mandates that contractual attorney fee provisions apply reciprocally. However, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1014" ] }, { "title": "(Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 615; Gil v. Mansano (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 739, 745.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "47", "paragraphs": [ "para_1017", "para_1018", "para_1019", "para_1020", "para_1021", "para_1022", "para_1023", "para_1024", "para_1025", "para_1026", "para_1027" ] }, { "title": "(1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 487.) The party seeking to enforce a one-sided contract term", "paragraphs": [ "para_1029", "para_1030", "para_1031" ] }, { "title": "Defendants did not argue in their briefs that there is a reasonable business", "paragraphs": [ "para_1033", "para_1034", "para_1035", "para_1036", "para_1037" ] }, { "title": "48", "paragraphs": [ "para_1039", "para_1040", "para_1041", "para_1042", "para_1043", "para_1044", "para_1045", "para_1046" ] }, { "title": "Under these circumstances, we conclude the fee provision under the bylaws is not", "paragraphs": [ "para_1048" ] }, { "title": "10 During oral argument, Sujan contended that Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at", "paragraphs": [ "para_1050", "para_1051" ] }, { "title": "Defendant responded that we may consider the wider circumstances and dynamics at play", "paragraphs": [ "para_1053" ] }, { "title": "We agree with defendants. The bylaws specifically tether the hospital’s ability to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1055", "para_1056", "para_1057", "para_1058", "para_1059", "para_1060" ] }, { "title": "49", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "C. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Finding Patel Was Not", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Liable For Attorney Fees, By Finding Defendants Did Not Properly Introduce Billing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Records From Their Prior Attorneys, and By Applying Lower Hourly Rates to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1065" ] }, { "title": "In their cross-appeal, defendants argue the trial court erred three ways in its order", "paragraphs": [ "para_1067", "para_1068", "para_1069", "para_1070", "para_1071", "para_1072", "para_1073" ] }, { "title": "Well after defendants’ motion for attorney fees had been fully briefed and just", "paragraphs": [ "para_1075", "para_1076", "para_1077", "para_1078", "para_1079", "para_1080", "para_1081", "para_1082" ] }, { "title": "50", "paragraphs": [ "para_1084" ] }, { "title": "Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1)), the court ruled there was no need for a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1086", "para_1087" ] }, { "title": "Defendants argue the court erred because Patel’s cause of action for loss of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1089", "para_1090", "para_1091", "para_1092", "para_1093", "para_1094", "para_1095" ] }, { "title": "As defendants state, Patel’s cause of action rises or falls with her husband’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1097", "para_1098" ] }, { "title": "Co. v. Superior Court (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, 285; see Calatayud v. State of California", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(1998) 18 Cal.4th 1057, 1060, fn. 4 [wife’s claim for loss of consortium “is derivative of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1101", "para_1102", "para_1103" ] }, { "title": "51", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In a lawsuit alleging contract based causes of action, “A nonsignatory will be", "paragraphs": [ "para_1106", "para_1107" ] }, { "title": "962, 966, quoting Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162", "paragraphs": [ "para_1109", "para_1110", "para_1111", "para_1112" ] }, { "title": "1017-1018.) Put another way, “in cases involving nonsignatories to a contract with an", "paragraphs": [ "para_1114", "para_1115", "para_1116", "para_1117" ] }, { "title": "Cal.App.4th 375, 382.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The same rule applies to nonsignatories and contractual attorney fees related to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1120", "para_1121", "para_1122", "para_1123" ] }, { "title": "11 A nonsignatory may also be entitled to recover attorney fees if they are a third", "paragraphs": [ "para_1125", "para_1126" ] }, { "title": "52", "paragraphs": [ "para_1128", "para_1129", "para_1130", "para_1131", "para_1132", "para_1133", "para_1134", "para_1135", "para_1136", "para_1137" ] }, { "title": "Neither party points to extrinsic evidence of contractual intent in the record, “so", "paragraphs": [ "para_1139", "para_1140" ] }, { "title": "8.1-5 of the bylaws unilaterally provides that a physician or other practitioner who sues", "paragraphs": [ "para_1142", "para_1143", "para_1144", "para_1145", "para_1146", "para_1147", "para_1148" ] }, { "title": "53", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Loan Assn. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1295, 1306 [attorney fees not recoverable in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1151", "para_1152", "para_1153" ] }, { "title": "In sum, we conclude the trial court properly ruled defendants cannot recover", "paragraphs": [ "para_1155", "para_1156" ] }, { "title": "Defendants argue they properly introduced evidence of attorney fees billed by", "paragraphs": [ "para_1158", "para_1159", "para_1160", "para_1161" ] }, { "title": "Sujan responds that, “[b]y failing to contest the tentative ruling, Defendants have waived", "paragraphs": [ "para_1163", "para_1164", "para_1165" ] }, { "title": "In support of their motion for attorney fees, defendants submitted the declaration", "paragraphs": [ "para_1167" ] }, { "title": "12 “‘[T]he correct term is “forfeiture” rather than “waiver,” because the former", "paragraphs": [ "para_1169", "para_1170", "para_1171", "para_1172" ] }, { "title": "54", "paragraphs": [ "para_1174", "para_1175", "para_1176", "para_1177", "para_1178" ] }, { "title": "Defendants in this matter” and he had personally reviewed the fees and invoices Manatt", "paragraphs": [ "para_1180" ] }, { "title": "However, McGrath also declared he was “familiar with the work performed by", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Defendants’ prior counsel in this matter,” having reviewed the fees and invoices from", "paragraphs": [ "para_1183" ] }, { "title": "(Italics added.) McGrath declared the attorneys from all six firms who represented", "paragraphs": [ "para_1185", "para_1186", "para_1187", "para_1188", "para_1189" ] }, { "title": "Sujan did not object to any of the evidence submitted with defendants’ fee motion", "paragraphs": [ "para_1191", "para_1192", "para_1193" ] }, { "title": "13 In order of appearance, those firms were Nossaman, LLP; Lewis Brisbois;", "paragraphs": [ "para_1195" ] }, { "title": "55", "paragraphs": [ "para_1197", "para_1198", "para_1199" ] }, { "title": "Citing authorities for the propositions that a declaration must state facts showing", "paragraphs": [ "para_1201", "para_1202" ] }, { "title": "McGrath’s declaration was incompetent to prove the attorney fees for work performed by", "paragraphs": [ "para_1204" ] }, { "title": "Defendants’ present counsels, this exhibit [i.e., the invoices attached to McGrath’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1206", "para_1207" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to only the fees properly supported", "paragraphs": [ "para_1209", "para_1210", "para_1211" ] }, { "title": "By not requesting oral argument on the trial court’s tentative ruling and arguing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McGrath’s declaration was legally sufficient to introduce their former counsel’s billing", "paragraphs": [ "para_1214" ] }, { "title": "14 Inter alia, the trial court relied on Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. That", "paragraphs": [ "para_1216", "para_1217", "para_1218", "para_1219", "para_1220" ] }, { "title": "56", "paragraphs": [ "para_1222", "para_1223", "para_1224", "para_1225", "para_1226", "para_1227", "para_1228" ] }, { "title": "42 Cal.App.5th 199, 215, quoting In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Defendants respond that their mere act of submitting on the tentative ruling does", "paragraphs": [ "para_1231", "para_1232", "para_1233", "para_1234" ] }, { "title": "Windeshausen (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 216, 226.) But those cases only apply “if the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1236" ] }, { "title": "Impact Cases (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 556, 574, fn. 6.) To repeat, Sujan did not object to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1238", "para_1239", "para_1240", "para_1241", "para_1242" ] }, { "title": "57", "paragraphs": [ "para_1244", "para_1245", "para_1246", "para_1247" ] }, { "title": "Moreover, even if the argument was not forfeited, we agree with Sujan that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1249", "para_1250", "para_1251", "para_1252", "para_1253", "para_1254", "para_1255", "para_1256", "para_1257" ] }, { "title": "Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(a) [“Evidence received at a law and motion hearing must be", "paragraphs": [ "para_1259", "para_1260", "para_1261", "para_1262" ] }, { "title": "Code, § 702, subd. (a).) ‘A witness’ personal knowledge of a matter may be shown by", "paragraphs": [ "para_1264" ] }, { "title": "58", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 964, 974.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_1267", "para_1268" ] }, { "title": "(2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 583, 601, quoting People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 356.)", "paragraphs": [ "para_1270", "para_1271", "para_1272", "para_1273", "para_1274", "para_1275", "para_1276" ] }, { "title": "Police Dept. v. Krepchin (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 480, 506; see Code Civ. Proc., § 475;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Evid. Code, §§ 353, 354.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Although McGrath purported to declare he had personal knowledge of every fact", "paragraphs": [ "para_1280", "para_1281", "para_1282", "para_1283", "para_1284", "para_1285", "para_1286" ] }, { "title": "59", "paragraphs": [ "para_1288", "para_1289", "para_1290" ] }, { "title": "In effect, the portions of McGrath’s declaration addressing attorney fees billed by", "paragraphs": [ "para_1292", "para_1293", "para_1294", "para_1295" ] }, { "title": "Barker (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 619, 624 [“A statement made without personal knowledge", "paragraphs": [ "para_1297", "para_1298", "para_1299", "para_1300", "para_1301", "para_1302", "para_1303" ] }, { "title": "And nothing in the record supports the inference that it would have been impossible or", "paragraphs": [ "para_1305", "para_1306", "para_1307" ] }, { "title": "60", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Last, we reject defendants’ suggestion that the trial court abused its discretion by", "paragraphs": [ "para_1310", "para_1311", "para_1312", "para_1313", "para_1314", "para_1315", "para_1316" ] }, { "title": "9 Cal.App.5th 162, 173), and that the proponent should be given the opportunity to cure", "paragraphs": [ "para_1318", "para_1319", "para_1320", "para_1321", "para_1322", "para_1323", "para_1324" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying", "paragraphs": [ "para_1326", "para_1327" ] }, { "title": "61", "paragraphs": [ "para_1329" ] }, { "title": "Last, defendants argue the trial court erred by ruling they were limited to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1331", "para_1332", "para_1333", "para_1334", "para_1335", "para_1336", "para_1337", "para_1338", "para_1339", "para_1340", "para_1341" ] }, { "title": "Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In its fee motion and the supporting declaration of McGrath, defendants claimed", "paragraphs": [ "para_1344", "para_1345" ] }, { "title": "Francisco areas. In total, defendants requested an award of $448,317.50 in attorney fees", "paragraphs": [ "para_1347", "para_1348", "para_1349" ] }, { "title": "62", "paragraphs": [ "para_1351", "para_1352", "para_1353", "para_1354", "para_1355", "para_1356", "para_1357", "para_1358", "para_1359", "para_1360", "para_1361", "para_1362", "para_1363", "para_1364", "para_1365", "para_1366", "para_1367", "para_1368", "para_1369", "para_1370" ] }, { "title": "1157.) “[A] court’s use of reasonable rates in the local community, as an integral part of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "63", "paragraphs": [ "para_1373", "para_1374", "para_1375" ] }, { "title": "1233, 1243, quoting Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Defendants state they “did not seek out or attempt to engage a local Riverside", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "County firm to handle this matter,” and argue “they should not have had to do so in order", "paragraphs": [ "para_1379", "para_1380", "para_1381", "para_1382" ] }, { "title": "A trial court may deviate from the default rule and award fees based on higher", "paragraphs": [ "para_1384", "para_1385", "para_1386", "para_1387", "para_1388", "para_1389" ] }, { "title": "286.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "15 Here too, Sujan argues defendants forfeited this claim of error by not objecting", "paragraphs": [ "para_1392", "para_1393", "para_1394" ] }, { "title": "64", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "However, the main decision defendants cite in support of their argument", "paragraphs": [ "para_1397", "para_1398", "para_1399", "para_1400", "para_1401", "para_1402", "para_1403", "para_1404", "para_1405", "para_1406" ] }, { "title": "Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 56, 82, first italics in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1408" ] }, { "title": "Nothing in the record supports the implication in defendants’ brief that it was", "paragraphs": [ "para_1410", "para_1411", "para_1412", "para_1413" ] }, { "title": "Moreover, it bears repeating here that we must afford to the trial court great", "paragraphs": [ "para_1415", "para_1416" ] }, { "title": "65", "paragraphs": [ "para_1418", "para_1419", "para_1420" ] }, { "title": "Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 88 [ruling ‘“‘falls “outside the bounds of reason”’”’];", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "People v. Linkenauger (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1603, 1614 [‘arbitrary, whimsical, or", "paragraphs": [ "para_1423", "para_1424", "para_1425" ] }, { "title": "Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773.)”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1051 [trial", "paragraphs": [ "para_1428" ] }, { "title": "On this record, we simply cannot conclude the trial court’s ruling on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1430", "para_1431" ] }, { "title": "16 In addition, we find the court’s selection of a $100 difference between the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1433", "para_1434", "para_1435" ] }, { "title": "66", "paragraphs": [ "para_1437" ] }, { "title": "DISPOSITION", "paragraphs": [ "para_1439" ] }, { "title": "Defendants shall recover their costs in plaintiffs’ appeal. Plaintiffs shall recover", "paragraphs": [ "para_1441" ] }, { "title": "CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McKINSTER", "paragraphs": [ "para_1444" ] }, { "title": "We concur:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "MILLER", "paragraphs": [ "para_1447" ] }, { "title": "RAPHAEL", "paragraphs": [ "para_1449" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Filed 9/16/26", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "DIVISION TWO", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "SUNIL SUJAN et al.,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs and Appellants,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "UHS CORONA, INC. et al.,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Defendants and Appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "E084185", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "(Super.Ct.No. RIC1717505)", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Chad W. Firetag, Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade, Lee Jackson and Mayo L. Makarczyk, for", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs and Appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Manatt, Phelps & Phillips; Epstein Becker & Green, Charles E. Weir, Joanna S.", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "McCallum and Colin M. McGrath, for Defendants and Appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Plaintiff Sunil Sujan, a physician who formerly practiced medicine with defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "Corona Regional Medical Center (CRMC), filed this lawsuit alleging CRMC and three", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "individual defendants (Alaa Afifi, M.D., Imdad N. Yusufaly, M.D., and Ahmed El-", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Bershawi, M.D.) engaged in a concerted scheme to defame him and ruin his professional", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "reputation, and summarily suspended his admitting privileges. Sujan’s wife Nina Patel", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "also sued defendants alleging a single cause of action for loss of consortium.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Sujan appeals from the judgment entered for defendants after the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "granted their motion for summary judgment. The trial court found, inter alia, that Sujan", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before suing for damages. According to", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Sujan, he was excused from exhausting his remedies in the available peer review process", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "because he had entered into an agreement with CRMC to lift his suspension and reinstate", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "his admitting privileges, and, because that agreement avoided the requirement that", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "CRMC report the suspension to the California Medical Board, it rendered futile any relief", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "he might have achieved through an administrative appeal. He also appeals from a", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "postjudgment order granting, in part, defendants’ motion for attorney fees as provided for", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "in CRMC’s bylaws. Sujan contends the fee provision in the bylaws conflicts with", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "Business and Professions Code1 section 809.9, which provides for attorney fees in", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "lawsuits challenging peer review decisions, and he argues defendants cannot recover fees", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "under that statute because the trial court made no finding that the lawsuit was frivolous or", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "that Sujan had acted in bad faith during the litigation. Finally, even if the fee provision", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "under the bylaws is not preempted by statute, Sujan argues it is unconscionable and", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "unenforceable.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "In a cross-appeal from the attorney fees order, defendants argue the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "erred by (1) finding Patel could not be held liable for attorney fees because she was not a", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "signatory to the bylaws, (2) finding the attorney declaration filed with the fee motion was", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "insufficient to introduce billing invoices in support of their claim for attorney fees", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "incurred for work performed by the prior attorneys, and (3) reducing the hourly rates for", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "work performed by two of their current attorneys.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "On Sujan’s appeal, we conclude (1) he has not met his burden of establishing with", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "evidence a triable issue of material fact on defendants’ defense by establishing he was", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "excused from exhausting his administrative remedies and (2) the trial court correctly", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "found defendants were entitled to recover attorney fees from Sujan as provided in the", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "bylaws.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "On defendants’ cross-appeal, we conclude the trial court correctly denied the", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "motion for attorney fees in part.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "Therefore, we affirm the judgment and postjudgment order on attorney fees.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "I.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "A. Sujan’s Complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Sujan has been a board certified physician for over 20 years. He had admitting", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "privileges at CRMC and practiced internal medicine there from August 2010 to July", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "2 We take much of the background to this lawsuit from our decision in a prior", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "appeal (Sujan v. Corona Regional Medical Center Inc. (E071217, Mar. 8, 2021) [nonpub.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "opn.] (Sujan I)), which we judicially notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.)", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "2016. In an introductory paragraph to his complaint, Sujan claimed he was damaged by", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "defendants’ “wrongful efforts to harm [his] practice.” Defendants’ alleged “scheme”", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "included “the filing of false and defamatory internal complaints designed to destroy", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "[Sujan’s] professional reputation” and “summarily suspending [his] admitting privileges", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "under false pretenses.” Those acts were “intended to unfairly compete with [Sujan] and", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "to convert [his] patients,” and they caused him “financial, mental, and emotional injury.”", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Sujan alleged he provided his patients at CRMC “with a high degree of care and", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "maintained strong professional relationships with his patients and many of his", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "colleagues.” His “success [was] well documented” and, according to a data management", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "system used by CRMC “to monitor physician performance,” the “mortality rate,", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "readmission rate, and length-of-stay average” for his patients “were much lower than that", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "of his peers.” Sujan achieved financial success at CRMC and signed “lucrative", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "contracts” with insurance providers that expanded his practice and placed him in direct", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "competition with Drs. Afifi, Yusufaly, and El-Bershawi, the individual defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "According to Sujan, the individual defendants responded to his competition and", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "“growing practice” by “organiz[ing] certain members of the physician staff and registered", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "nursing staff at CRMC” to engage in a “concerted and ongoing” campaign to defame", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "Sujan’s reputation through CRMC’s peer review process “by falsely depicting him as", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "unresponsive, dilatory, and ill-tempered,” with the goal of having Sujan censured and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "“‘Consistent with our standard of review of orders granting summary judgment,", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "we will recite the historical facts in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmoving party.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "(Mackey v. Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640, 647, fn.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "3.)", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "suspended. CRMC abetted and/or conspired with the individual defendants in their", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "campaign to defame Sujan, and it was financially motivated to do so because it had an", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "economic interest in recruiting and hiring physicians from EmCare (a healthcare", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "recruiting and staffing company) and ousting physicians like Sujan, who were", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "unaffiliated with EmCare.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "Sujan alleged the individual defendants organized members of the physician and", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "nursing staff to file dozens of “MIDAS reports” claiming Sujan “failed to adequately", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "respond to pages and calls he received from the nursing staff.” A MIDAS report is a", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "report from a staff member about an alleged violation of CRMC’s bylaws and/or state or", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "federal law by a physician. If the director of risk management concludes the report meets", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "CRMC’s peer review criteria, it is submitted to the relevant departmental quality review", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "committee (QRC) to determine whether the bylaws or law(s) have been violated and, if", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "so, it is forwarded to CRMC’s medical executive committee (MEC) to conduct a peer", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "review and determine whether to restrict, supervise, or revoke the physician’s privileges.", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "According to Sujan, the allegations in the 86 MIDAS reports filed against him", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "were “virtually all fabricated,” and “[n]early all of [them] failed to meet the hospital’s", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "criteria for review.” While auditing the reports, the director of risk management learned", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "of the scheme to defame Sujan and was shocked Sujan was being targeted. Most, if not", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "all, of the reports alleged Sujan did not return calls or pages, but he showed his phone to", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "the director to prove that “on several occasions” he did return calls or pages, or he was", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "never called or paged to begin with. And while investigating the matter, the director", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "spoke to nurse managers and was told that “some of the nurses at CRMC were being", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "directed to submit MIDAS reports against [Sujan] based on false and/or misleading", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "allegations.”3", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "In June 2016, a patient died of heart failure while under Sujan’s care. The patient", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "suffered from various ailments, including a potentially deadly heart condition, and he was", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "a heavy drug user. At the time, Dr. Afifi was chief of staff for the MEC. When Dr. Afifi", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "learned of the death, he convened the MEC and summarily suspended Sujan’s admitting", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "privileges “based on its conclusory finding [that] the suspension was necessary to avoid", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "an imminent risk to patients.” According to Sujan, Dr. Afifi conducted no investigation", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "to determine whether Sujan committed any wrongdoing, and he declined to conduct an", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "analysis to determine the “root cause” of the patient’s death or to interview key witnesses", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "such as Sujan or the head of the intensive care unit (ICU) at the time.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "Some of Sujan’s colleagues who were familiar with his practice, including the", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "“head of the ICU,” were shocked to learn of the summary suspension and wrote letters on", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "his behalf. The patient’s insurance provider investigated the death and found no evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "of wrongdoing by Sujan, but no other investigation was conducted. According to Sujan,", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "defendants had no interest in investigating the cause of the patient’s death or in", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "determining whether Sujan had committed any wrongdoing. And, once Sujan’s", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "3 Sujan does not expressly allege the director of risk management found none of", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "the MIDAS reports met the criteria for peer review and declined to forward any of them", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "to the relevant QRC, but that is clearly the implication.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "privileges were suspended, defendants “converted all of [his] patients” and reassigned", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "them to physicians affiliated with EmCare.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "On July 7, 2016, the MEC voted to maintain the summary suspension of Sujan’s", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "privileges unless he entered into an agreement establishing the terms and conditions of", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "his reinstatement. The agreement, drafted by Dr. Afifi and the MEC, expressed concerns", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "about (1) Sujan’s ability to adequately care for his patients, (2) his failure to respond to", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "requests from nursing staff, (3) his failure to comply with requirements for medical", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "record keeping, and (4) two patients deaths (the patient whose death prompted the", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "summary suspension and another who died two years earlier).", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "The detailed list of conditions for lifting Sujan’s suspension included in the", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "agreement were as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "(1) Sujan was to “comply fully with all Medical Staff bylaws and rules,”", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "with specific mention of those related to timely record keeping;", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "(2) he was to sign an updated code of conduct within 10 days;", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "(3) he was to provide his office, beeper, cellular, and home phone numbers", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "to the emergency and nursing departments “and take all steps necessary to assure", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "that hospital staff will be able to contact him without delay”;", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "(4) he was to identify one or more members of the medical staff in good", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "standing and with similar admitting privileges “to be his backup for the care of his", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "patients,” provide written notice to the medical staff office of any change to his", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "backup, and “take all steps necessary to assure that either he or his backup", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "physician will always be available without delay”;", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "(5) he was to “take all steps necessary to assure that he or his backup", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "physician will come to the hospital and provide care for ER patients while on call", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "within thirty (30) minutes from being called by hospital staff”;", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "(6) he was to complete within 90 days, at his own expense, a training", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "course approved by the chief of medicine on the care and treatment of patients", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "with diabetes and pancreatitis;", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "(7) he was to ensure that he or his backup would see and provide care to", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "every non-ICU patient admitted to his care within eight hours of accepting", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "responsibility for the patient, and ensure that he or his backup see and provide care", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "to every ICU patient within four hours of accepting responsibility for the patient;", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "(8) he was to complete, at his own expense, training programs on medical", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "record keeping and anger management;", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "(9) he was to personally respond in writing to all letters of concern sent to", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "him by the department of medicine or medical staff committee within the time and", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "manner specified in the letters, but within no less than five business days;", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "(10) he was to identify, in consultation with the chair of the department of", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "medicine, one or more members of the department to mentor him and “provide", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "concurrent review and guidance . . . relating to the care of patients,” and the", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "mentor or mentors were to submit written reports to the MEC every ninety days4;", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "(11) he was not to retaliate, by word or deed, against anyone who had", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "complained about him or participated in reviewing complaints about him, though", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "he retained the right to lodge a complaint or grievance as provided in the bylaws;", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "and", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "(12) he was to meet with the MEC as requested.", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "The agreement provided the MEC would promptly review any report of a violation", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "of those conditions and provide Sujan with the opportunity to respond to such a report", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "orally and/or in writing. If the MEC determined Sujan had violated the agreement, it", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "would reinstatement the summary suspension “or take whatever alternative action the", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "MEC deem[ed] reasonable.” If the MEC reinstated the summary suspension or took", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "another action that triggered Sujan’s right to request a hearing, the MEC would give him", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "notice of his fair procedure rights under the bylaws.", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "Sujan disagreed with the factual basis of his suspension, which was based on the", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "allegedly false and defamatory MIDAS reports, and he disagreed with the suggestion in", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "the agreement that the patients’ deaths were the result of his wrongdoing. However,", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "Sujan believed he had “no reasonable choice” but to sign the agreement because", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "otherwise his summary suspension would have been reported to the California Medical", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "Board and the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) with potentially “ruinous”", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "4 The agreement provided the imposition of a mentorship “will not be considered", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "to be a restriction of privileges.”", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "consequences for his medical career. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 805; 42 U.S.C. § 11133.)", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "Therefore, he signed the agreement on July 13, 2016. Shortly thereafter, he voluntarily", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "ended his relationship with CRMC.", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "In the summer of 2017, Sujan was offered a position as a full-time hospitalist with", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "Good Samaritan Hospital, contingent on the hospital verifying his dates of employment at", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "CRMC. After Good Samaritan contacted CRMC for verification, CRMC e-mailed Sujan", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "on August 21, 2017, and told him it would not provide the requested information to Good", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "Samaritan unless Sujan signed an attached release, in which he would agree to release", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "CRMC from all claims related to its transmission of the verification. Attached to the e-", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "mail from CRMC was also a copy of the verification to be sent to Good Samaritan. In", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "addition to basic employment information requested by Good Samaritan, the verification", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "included a detailed summary of the false and defamatory allegations made in support of", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "Sujan’s summary suspension. Sujan refused to sign the release. As of the date of the", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "complaint, CRMC had not transmitted the verification to Good Samaritan, and the status", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "of his offer of employment was in jeopardy.", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "Sujan alleged he suffered mental, emotional, and physical injury from defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "conduct, including depression, strain on his marriage and family relationships, and a heart", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "attack brought on by the stress of his suspension. He also alleged the loss of his patients", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "at CRMC and his contracts with insurance providers has resulted in him losing between", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "$500,000 and $600,000 in annual income, and he has lost opportunities to work at other", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "hospitals.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "In a first cause of action for conversion, Sujan alleged the records and protected", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "health information for his patients at CRMC are his personal property, and he invested", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "substantial time, money, and effort into developing the confidentiality and protection of", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "those records. The false and defamatory MIDAS reports filed at defendants’ instigation", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "were designed to destroy Sujan’s professional reputation and, after Sujan’s suspension", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "under false pretenses, defendants “converted [his] business, patient relationships, and", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "patient medical agreements.”", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "Sujan’s second cause of action for intentional interference with a prospective", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "economic interest alleged he enjoyed a long-term and mutually beneficial relationship", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "with his patients, of which defendants were aware. The false and defamatory MIDAS", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "reports were designed to destroy Sujan’s professional reputation, and defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "summarily suspended his privileges “under false pretenses, with the intent and purpose of", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "terminating [Sujan’s] relationship with his patients during his suspension.” Defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "succeeded in terminating Sujan’s relationship with his patients and caused him economic", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "harm.", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "The third cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "alleged Sujan had valid contracts with his patients, of which defendants were aware.", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "Defendants filed false and defamatory MIDAS reports designed to ruin Sujan’s", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "professional reputation and summarily suspended his privileges under false pretenses", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "with the intent of inducing a breach of the contracts between Sujan and his patients", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "during his suspension. Defendants succeeded in inducing a breach and/or disruption of", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "the contractual relationship between Sujan and his patients and harmed him", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "economically.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "In a fourth cause of action, Sujan alleged defendants conspired and aided and", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "abetted each other in committing the torts alleged in the second and third causes of", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "action.", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "Sujan’s fifth cause of action for defamation alleged the MIDAS reports filed at", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "defendants’ instigation claimed Sujan failed to return calls or pages, was unresponsive,", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "and did not adequately attend to his patients’ needs and requests. The claims made in the", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "reports were false and resulted in irreparable damage to Sujan’s professional reputation", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "among his patients and peers.", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "In his sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Sujan", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "alleged the individual defendants’ conduct in instigating the filing of false and", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "defamatory MIDAS reports, and their act of summarily suspending Sujan’s admitting", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "privileges, were outrageous and committed with the express intent to cause, or with", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "reckless disregard for the possibility they would cause, emotional distress. Those acts", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "caused Sujan severe emotional distress, anguish, and anxiety.", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "Finally, the seventh cause of action alleged “defendants’ acts and omissions”", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "toward Sujan caused his wife Patel to suffer loss of consortium.", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "Sujan alleged defendants caused him irreparable and incalculable harm, including", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "loss of reputation and goodwill, and he prayed for injunctive relief to prevent further", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "irreparable harm. In addition to monetary damages according to proof, Sujan alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "defendants’ conduct was intentional, despicable, and subjected him to unjust hardship", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "and loss with conscious disregard of his rights, and he prayed for punitive damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "Defendants answered and, among other affirmative defenses, pleaded Sujan failed", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "to exhaust his administrative and judicial remedies. Thereafter, defendants filed Anti-", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "SLAPP motions to dismiss, which the trial court denied. We affirmed the denials. (Sujan", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "I, supra, E071217.)", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "B. Summary Judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "In an amended motion for summary judgment, defendants argued, inter alia, they", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their defense to the causes of action for", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "with contractual relations because, by accepting the agreement to lift his summary", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "suspension and reinstate his admitting privileges, Sujan did not exhaust his available", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "administrative and judicial remedies.5 CRMC’s bylaws provide administrative remedies", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "to challenge adverse actions against medical staff. Article VIII of CRMC’s bylaws is", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "entitled “Hearing and Appellate Reviews.” Under section 8.1-4, a physician whose", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "privileges are summarily suspended for less than 14 days has the right to contest that", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "action by delivering a written request to the MEC within 30 days of notice of the", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "suspension. The MEC has the duty to provide the physician with notice of the reasons", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "5 Sujan does not argue the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "five other causes of action stated in his complaint. Therefore, we need not address", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "defendants’ additional arguments in their motion.", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "for the summary suspension and to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "respond and a “resolution of the matter by an unbiased panel.”", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "Section 8.1-5 requires all “members . . . to exhaust all remedies provided in this", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "Article or elsewhere in medical staff bylaws, rules and regulations or policies before", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "initiating legal action,” and provides that “[a]ny practitioner who fails to exhaust the", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "remedies (including all hearing and appeal remedies) provided in these bylaws before", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "initiating legal action shall be liable to pay the full costs, including legal fees, required to", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "respond to such legal action.” In addition, section 8.1-8 provides: “Recommended", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "adverse actions described in Section 8.2 shall become final only after the hearing and", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "appellate rights set forth in these bylaws have either been exhausted or waived, and only", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "upon being adopted as final actions by the Governing Board of Directors.” In turn,", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "section 8.2 provides that an administrative hearing may be requested about a list of", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "completed or recommended adverse actions, including “summary suspension of staff", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "membership or staff privileges for greater than 14 days.”", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "Sujan did not dispute that he did not avail himself of the available peer review", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "appeals process. Instead, relying heavily on the futility exception to the exhaustion", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "doctrine and the decision in Joel v. Valley Surgical Center (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 360", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "(Joel), Sujan argued he could not have obtained more relief through the peer review", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "appeals process than he did through the agreement to reinstate his admitting privileges,", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "which avoided his suspension from being reported, so he was excused from exhausting", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "his administrative remedies. In his declaration submitted with the opposition, Sujan", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "stated, “I was extremely concerned about this suspension remaining in place for 14 days,", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "because this would trigger a requirement that it be reported to the California Medical", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "Board, which I believed would be extremely harmful to my career as a physician.”", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "The trial court granted the motion, finding Sujan was not excused from exhausting", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "his administrative remedies. The court distinguished Joel, finding, “unlike the doctor in", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "Joel, Dr. Sujan did not obtain a full reinstatement and therefore did not achieve the", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "maximum relief he could have been afforded administratively.” The court entered", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "judgment for defendants and ruled they were entitled to recover their costs and attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "fees. Thereafter, the court denied Sujan’s motion for new trial.", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "Sujan timely appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "C. Attorney Fees.", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "Relying on the contractual attorney fee provision in the bylaws, defendants filed a", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "motion seeking $892,417 in attorney fees, which represented services provided by six law", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "firms, including their current attorneys. Inter alia, Sujan opposed the motion arguing", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "(1) the contractual fee provision conflicts with section 809.9, which provides for attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "fees in a lawsuit challenging a peer review decision only when the lawsuit was frivolous", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "or the losing party acted in bad faith, and (2) even if the contractual fee provision applies", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "to this case, it is unconscionable and unenforceable. And, in a proposed supplemental", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "opposition filed just before the scheduled hearing, Patel argued she was not a signatory to", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "the bylaws and is therefore not liable to pay attorney fees. Sujan filed no written", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "objections to the evidence defendants submitted with their fee motion, and he did not", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "argue the declaration in support of the fee motion was insufficient in any way.", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "In its tentative ruling granting the motion in part and denying it in part, the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "court ruled section 809.9 is not the exclusive basis for defendants to seek their attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "fees, and the court rejected Sujan’s argument that the contractual fee provision in the", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "bylaws is unconscionable. Acting sua sponte, the court ruled the declaration of", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "defendants’ current counsel filed in support of the motion was based in part on", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "information and belief, and defendants had not properly introduced evidence of attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "fees billed by their former attorneys and denied the request for those fees entirely. With", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "respect to defendants’ current attorneys, the court ruled the total hours claimed for work", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "performed by four attorneys and the hourly rate claimed for two junior attorneys was", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "reasonable. However, the court found the hourly rate claimed for two partners was not", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "comparable to prevailing rates in Riverside County and, after adjusting the hourly rate for", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "those two attorneys, awarded defendants $313,830 in attorney fees. Finally, the court", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "ruled Patel was not liable for attorney fees as a non-signatory to the bylaws. Neither", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "party requested oral argument on the motion, so the trial court adopted its tentative ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "as its order.", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "Both sides appealed the attorney fee order.", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "II.", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "DISCUSSION", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "A. The Trial Court Correctly Granted Summary Judgment for Defendants on", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "Sujan’s Causes of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "Relations and Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "Sujan argues the trial court erred in ruling he was required to exhaust his", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "administrative remedies before suing for damages and seeks reversal of the summary", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "judgment on his causes of action for interference with prospective economic advantage", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "and interference with contractual relations. According to Sujan, his settlement with the", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "CRMC to reinstate his admitting privileges avoided the need for his suspension to be", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "reported to the California Medical Board and provided him with all the relief he might", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "have obtained during a review hearing, so pursuing an administrative remedy would have", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "been futile. We disagree and affirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "1. Standard of Review.", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), provides that summary", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "judgment is to be granted ‘if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "law.’ A defendant ‘moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact.’", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar).) A defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "may meet this burden either by showing one or more elements of a cause of action cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "be established or by showing there is a complete defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "subd. (p)(2); Aguilar, at p. 850.)” (Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp. (2024) 106", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "Cal.App.5th 1026, 1033 (Gonzalez).)", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "“If the defendant’s prima facie case is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "show the existence of a triable issue of material fact with respect to that cause of action or", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "‘[T]o meet that burden, the plaintiff “. . . shall set forth the specific facts showing that a", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action . . . .”’ (Merrill v. Navegar,", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477.) Ultimately, the moving party ‘bears the burden of", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "as a matter of law.’ (Aguilar, at p. 850, fn. omitted.)” (Gonzalez, supra, 106 Cal.App.5th", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "at p. 1033.)", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "“‘“‘Because this case comes before us after the trial court granted a motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "summary judgment, we take the facts from the record that was before the trial court when", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "it ruled on that motion. [Citation.] “‘We review the trial court’s decision de novo,", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers except that to", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "which objections were made and sustained.’” [Citation.] We liberally construe the", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "concerning the evidence in favor of that party.’”’” (Gonzalez, supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "p. 1034, quoting Hampton v. County of San Diego (2015) 62 Cal.4th 340, 347.)", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "2. Peer Review and the Requirement That Physicians Exhaust", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "Administrative and Judicial Remedies Before Filing Suit.", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "“Under state law, a licensed hospital facility must have ‘a formally organized and", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "self-governing medical staff responsible for “the adequacy and quality of the medical", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "care rendered to patients in the hospital.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 70703, subd. (a).)’", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "(Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal.4th 4, 10, italics omitted; [citation].) The medical staff", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "acts primarily through a number of peer review committees, which, along with other", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "responsibilities, assess the performance of physicians currently on staff, review the need", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "for and results of each surgery performed in the hospital, and the control of in-hospital", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "infections. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 70703, subds. (b) & (d).) If a peer review", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "committee recommends that the privileges of the physician be restricted or revoked", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "because of the manner in which he or she exercised those privileges, a series of", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "procedural mechanisms kick into play—all governed by state law. (Bus. & Prof. Code,", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "§§ 809-809.8; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 70703, subd. (b).)” (Unnamed Physician v.", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 616 (Unnamed Physician).)", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "“In 1989, the state Legislature enacted California Business and Professions Code", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "section 809 et seq. for the purpose of opting out of the federal Health Care Quality", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "Improvement Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq.), which was passed to encourage", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "physicians to engage in effective peer review. California chose to design a peer review", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "system of its own, and did so with the enactment of these sections. (Stats. 1989, ch. 336,", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "§ 1, pp. 1444-1445.) Section 809 provides generally that peer review, fairly conducted, is", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "essential to preserving the highest standards of medical practice and that peer review", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "which is not conducted fairly results in harm both to patients and healing arts", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "practitioners by limiting access to care. (§ 809, subd. (a)(3), (4).) The statute thus", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "recognizes not only the balance between the rights of the physician to practice his or her", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "profession and the duty of the hospital to ensure quality care, but also the importance of a", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "fair procedure, free of arbitrary and discriminatory acts.” (Unnamed Physician, supra, 93", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th at pp. 616-617, fn. omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "“The statutory scheme delegates to the private sector the responsibility to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "fairly conducted peer review in accordance with due process, including notice, discovery", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "and hearing rights, all specified in the statute. [Citations.] A hospital is required to", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "establish high professional and ethical standards and to maintain those standards through", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "careful selection and review of its staff. [Citation.] To comply with the statute’s", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "mandate, the hospital’s medical staff must adopt bylaws that include formal procedures", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "for ‘“the evaluation of staff applications and credentials, appointments, reappointments,", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "assignment of clinical privileges, appeals mechanisms and such other subjects or", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "conditions which the medical staff and governing body deem appropriate.” [Citation.]’", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "[Citation.] It is these bylaws that govern the parties’ administrative rights.” (Unnamed", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "Physician, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 617.)", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "“A hospital’s decisions resulting from peer review proceedings are subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "judicial review by administrative mandate. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.8.)” (Kibler v.", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "21", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 192, 200; see Code Civ.", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "Proc., § 1094.5.)", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "“‘In brief, the rule is that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute,", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "courts will act.’ (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 292 . . . .)", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "The rule ‘is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "binding upon all courts.’ (Id. at p. 293.) We have emphasized that ‘Exhaustion of", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "administrative remedies is “a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts.”", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "[Citation].’ (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70.)” (Campbell v.", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 321.) “Under this doctrine,", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "‘“a party must go through the entire proceeding to a ‘final decision on the merits of the", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "entire controversy’ before resorting to the courts for relief.”’” (Eight Unnamed", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "Physicians v. Medical Executive Com. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 503, 511, italics omitted", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "(Eight Unnamed Physicians).)", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "“[U]nless a party to a quasi-judicial proceeding challenges the agency’s adverse", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "findings made in that proceeding, by means of a mandate action in superior court, those", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "findings are binding in later civil actions. This requirement of exhaustion of judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "remedies is to be distinguished from the requirement of exhaustion of administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "remedies.” (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 69-70, fn. omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "Whereas exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "suit, “[e]xhaustion of judicial remedies . . . is necessary to avoid giving binding ‘effect to", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "22", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "the administrative agency’s decision, because that decision has achieved finality due to", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "the aggrieved party’s failure to pursue the exclusive judicial remedy for reviewing", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "administrative action.’” (Ibid.)", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "In Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 465 (Westlake),", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "our Supreme Court held “that before a doctor may initiate litigation challenging the", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "propriety of a hospital’s denial or withdrawal of privileges, he [or she] must exhaust the", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "available internal remedies afforded by the hospital.” (Id. at p. 469.) The court found", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "several compelling policy reasons to support applying that doctrine to claims for", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "reinstatement and/or damages. “In the first place, even if a plaintiff no longer wishes to", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "be either reinstated or admitted to the organization, an exhaustion of remedies", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "requirement serves the salutary function of eliminating or mitigating damages. If an", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "organization is given the opportunity quickly to determine through the operation of its", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "internal procedures that it has committed error, it may be able to minimize, and", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "sometimes eliminate, any monetary injury to the plaintiff by immediately reversing its", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "initial decision and affording the aggrieved party all membership rights; an individual", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "should not be permitted to increase damages by foregoing available internal remedies.", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "[Citation.] [¶] Moreover, by insisting upon exhaustion even in these circumstances,", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "courts accord recognition to the “expertise” of the organization’s quasi-judicial tribunal,", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "permitting it to adjudicate the merits of the plaintiff’s claim in the first instance.", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "[Citation.] Finally, even if the absence of an internal damage remedy makes ultimate", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "resort to the courts inevitable [citation], the prior administrative proceeding will still", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "23", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "promote judicial efficiency by unearthing the relevant evidence and by providing a record", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "which the court may review.” (Id. at p. 476.)", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "“‘Although the decision in Westlake applied to the “fair procedure” a hospital was", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "required to provide under California common law [citation], rather than to the statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "peer review procedure now required by [Business and Professions Code] section 809 et", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "seq.[,] . . . the exhaustion doctrine applies under the new statutory scheme as much as it", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "did under the previous common law scheme.’” (Eight Unnamed Physicians, supra, 150", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th at p. 511, quoting Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (2005)", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "128 Cal.App.4th 85, 100, fn. 13.)", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "3. Sujan Has Not Established He Was Exempt From Exhausting His", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "Administrative Remedies.", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "The party alleging they are not required to exhaust applicable administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "remedies has the burden of proving an exception. (Public Employees’ Retirement System", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1048.)", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "“‘The [exhaustion] doctrine is inapplicable where “the administrative remedy is", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "inadequate [citation]; where it is unavailable [citation]; or where it would be futile to", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "pursue such remedy [citation].”’” (Unnamed Physician, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "p. 620.)", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "As indicated, ante, section 8.1-5 of the bylaws requires all “members . . . to", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "exhaust all remedies provided in this Article or elsewhere in medical staff bylaws, rules", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "and regulations or policies before initiating legal action.” Sujan argues he was excused", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "24", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "from exhausting those administrative remedies before filing suit because to do so would", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "have been futile. The futility exception is very narrow, and “applies only if the party", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "invoking it can positively state that the administrative agency has declared what its ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "will be in a particular case.” (Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1298,", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "1313; accord, Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080-1081.) The party asserting this", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "exception must submit “solid objective evidence to illustrate [the] claimed futility. ‘His", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "own speculative, subjective feelings about the matter do not allow him to unilaterally", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "ignore avenues of review. If that were the case, exhaustion would be a dead doctrine.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "(Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1115, 1130; see Upshaw", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 489, 507 [party fails to establish futility where", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "there is “no evidence the [respondent] had taken any position, let alone declared what its", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "ruling would be”].)", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "Sujan does not explicitly contend the MEC had already declared what it would", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "decide had he timely requested a review hearing. Instead, relying on Joel, supra, 68", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th 360, Sujan argues the agreement to lift his summary suspension and reinstate", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "his admitting privileges rendered futile the exhaustion of his available administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "remedies.", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "In Joel, a physician had his hospital privileges summarily suspended for failing to", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "obtain authorization before administering an anesthetic pain block to a patient. After the", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "hospital’s MEC met with the physician to discuss the suspension, the MEC reaffirmed its", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "25", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "decision and informed the physician he could request a hearing before the hospital’s", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "review committee as provided in the hospital’s bylaws, which the physician requested.", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "(Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 363-364.)", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "The hospital sent the physician a notice of the charges against him and scheduled a", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "review hearing. (Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 364.) However, the parties settled", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "their dispute before the hearing could take place. “The agreement confirmed that the", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "suspension would immediately end, and [the physician’s] privileges would be reinstated", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "‘without limitation or restriction,’ provided that [he] withdraw his request for an", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "administrative hearing. The parties agreed: ‘The summary suspension of [the", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "physician’s] privileges would be ended immediately conditioned upon [him] immediately", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "thereafter withdrawing his pending request for a hearing with respect thereto.’ [¶] The", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "agreement also stated: ‘This settlement of the privileges dispute regarding the summary", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "suspension has no legal effect on any other matter or any damages claim resulting from", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "the summary suspension. Accordingly, nothing in this settlement or agreement releases", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "either party from any claim or action which might otherwise exist or relieves any party", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "from any legal obligation to satisfy or complete any action or proceeding as a precedent", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "to asserting any claim.’” (Ibid.) Thereafter the physician sued for damages and the", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "hospital demurred, arguing, inter alia, the physician had failed to exhaust his", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "administrative remedies. The trial court sustained the demurrer. (Id. at p. 364.)", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "On appeal, the court addressed whether the doctrine of administrative exhaustion", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "from Westlake, supra, 17 Cal.3d 465 applied to the physician. After summarizing that", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "26", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "decision and discussing the policy reasons behind the doctrine, the appellate court", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "concluded “none of the policies underlying the Westlake decision are furthered under the", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "facts here, and thus, the decision is inapplicable where the administrative machinery has", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "been commenced, but the parties resolve the dispute before its completion through", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "settlement which awards the physician the maximum benefit he or she could have been", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "afforded administratively.” (Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 366-367.)", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "The court found the settlement to reinstate the physician’s hospital privileges", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "“satisfies all three principal concerns found important to the Westlake court in requiring", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "administrative exhaustion as a prelude to an action for damages. First, by agreeing to", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "reinstate [the physician], [the hospital] mitigated any damages to [the physician]", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "occasioned by the suspension. Had the parties not settled and had [the physician] been", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "successful in achieving through a hearing what he was able to obtain through settlement,", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "damages resulting from the suspension would arguably be greater, if for no other reason", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "than the period of suspension would have been longer.” (Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "p. 367.)", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "“Second, the relief obtained by [the physician] through settlement was not a partial", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "or conditional reinstatement, but was the maximum relief he could have achieved", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "administratively. Certainly, unconditional reinstatement would not have been agreed to", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "without a reflective and experienced analysis by [the hospital] as to whether the decision", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "to suspend was well advised in the first place, and perhaps more importantly, whether", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "reinstatement constituted a future risk to the patients of [the hospital]. Implicit in the", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "27", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "decision to reinstate is that [the hospital] addressed and evaluated the merits of", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "reinstatement as it related to the future quality of patient care, thus bringing to bear the", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "‘expertise’ of [the hospital’s] administrators on the dispute.” (Joel, supra, 68", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th at p. 367.)", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "For the third policy consideration—“the potential for the administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "proceeding to unearth evidence and to produce a record which might be of use to the", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "court in a subsequent lawsuit”—the appellate court noted Evidence Code section 1157", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "barred the discovery of records of hospital peer review committees for use in litigation.", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "(Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 367-368.) “Thus, even if the peer review process", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "‘unearth[ed] the relevant evidence,’ [the physician] would not be entitled to discovery of", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "any of the documents in his action for damages. (Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 476.) Therefore, Westlake is factually inapposite and its", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "rationale supporting exhaustion through appropriate review procedures before bringing a", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "suit for damages is inapplicable to the circumstances presented here.” (Joel, at p. 368.)", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "Last, the court indicated, “we do not see any judicial efficiency to be gained in", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "compelling parties to litigate issues when they would rather avoid the time, money, and", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "uncertainty of an administrative hearing by settling their dispute.” (Joel, supra, 68", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th at p. 369.) The court rejected the hospital’s suggestion that permitting the", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "physician to sue, without first exhausting his administrative remedies, would inhibit", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "settlements. “First, we do not accept the premise that a medical care facility would", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "choose to continue administrative proceedings evaluating and reviewing a questionable", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "28", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "administrative decision rather than dealing with the issue of staff competency on its", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "merits. We reject as unfounded the necessary inference from [the hospital’s] argument", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "that facility administrators might be motivated to resist reinstatement of deserving and", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "productive staff because of an irrelevant concern that to do so might result in a claim for", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "damages. It implies that the reviewing body would base staffing decisions on irrelevant", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "factors and not matters affecting the best interests of the institution’s patients, an", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "assumption we are unwilling to accept.” (Ibid.)", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the physician “that further pursuit of an", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "administrative hearing was rendered futile by the settlement agreement because the", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "administrative process had nothing more to offer, and that the settlement gave him", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "everything the administrative hearing could have provided—namely, the full", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "reinstatement of all his privileges.” (Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 369.)", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "Joel is distinguishable. The appellate court took pains to emphasize the settlement", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "in that case “was not a partial or conditional reinstatement” of admitting privileges.", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "(Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 367, italics added.) Instead, the hospital gave the", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "physician “the maximum relief he could have achieved administratively,” and such a", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "settlement “would not have been agreed to without a reflective and experienced analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "by [the hospital] as to whether the decision to suspend was well advised in the first place,", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "and perhaps more importantly, whether reinstatement constituted a future risk to the", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "patients of [the hospital].” (Ibid., italics added.) Under those circumstances, requiring", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "the physician to exhaust his administrative remedies would have been futile because a", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "29", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "review hearing had nothing more to offer than he had already received from the", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "settlement, to wit, full vindication that his suspension had been unwarranted and that he", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "should be reinstated unconditionally. (Id. at pp. 369-370.)", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "In contrast, the settlement to lift Sujan’s summary suspension was heavily", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "conditioned on him agreeing to the detailed and onerous list of terms and provisos", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "outlined, ante, and further provided that the MEC could reinstate Sujan’s summary", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "suspension or take other reasonable, remedial steps if it concluded he had violated those", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "terms and conditions. In addition, the settlement reaffirmed the MEC’s continuing", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "concerns about Sujan’s ability to safely care for his patients and it imposed various", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "requirements specifically calculated to address those concerns, such as requiring Sujan to", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "take additional training courses (at his own expense), select one or more backup", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "physicians, and be paired with a mentor to provide ongoing review and guidance in his", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "treatment of patients. In other words, the settlement did not fully vindicate Sujan’s claim", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "that his suspension had been unwarranted from the beginning.", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "As he did in the trial court, Sujan argues his “primary motive” in signing the", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "agreement to reinstate his admitting privileges was to avoid the summary suspension", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "being reported to the California Medical Board. He contends that by accepting the terms", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "of the agreement and not challenging the suspension in the peer review process, he", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "avoided the “inherently harmful” consequences of having the suspension reported and", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "received the maximum relief he would have received had he pursued his administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "remedies. To repeat, Sujan bore the burden of establishing the futility exception to the", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "30", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "exhaustion doctrine. (Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Santa Clara Valley", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "Transportation Authority, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1048.) But, other than his own", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "statements in his declaration, Sujan introduced no evidence, such as expert testimony, to", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "support the allegation in his complaint that a report would have had ruinous", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "consequences for his career. (See., e.g., Miller v. Huron Regional Medical Center (8th", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "Cir. 2019) 936 F.3d 841, 845 [Plaintiff’s expert witnesses testified a report to the NPDB", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "“that a physician voluntarily reduced her privileges while under investigation would be", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "‘absolutely devasting,’” and the contents of the report were “the ‘kiss of death.’”].) In", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "other words, he did not meet his burden of showing a triable issue of material fact on the", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "defense of failure to exhaust administrative and judicial remedies by demonstrating that", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "pursuing those remedies would have been futile. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "In his brief, Sujan cites the decision in Mileikowsy v West Hills Hospital &", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "Medical Center (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1259. There, the Supreme Court suggested that a", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "report to the California Medical Board and NPDB that a hospital has denied or failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "renew admitting privileges to a physician “may have the effect of ending the physician’s", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "career” if the physician later seeks employment at another hospital. (Id. at p. 1268.) The", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "physician in that case challenged a hospital’s decision not to renew his staff privileges,", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "but he was not afforded a full hearing during the peer review process because the hearing", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "officer entered a terminating sanction and dismissed the review hearing when the", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "physician failed to disclose information. (Id. at pp. 1265-1266.) The Supreme Court did", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "not address what the consequences of a report would be to a physician who is provided a", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "31", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "full and fair hearing in the peer review process and is vindicated and obtains a full", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "reinstatement of their admitting privileges.6", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "Like the trial court, we find the decision in Ennix v. Stanten (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28,", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "2007, No. C 07-02486 WHA) 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66032 (Ennix) to be instructive.7 In", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "Ennix, a heart surgeon was summarily suspended by the president of the hospital’s", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "medical staff for failing to make rounds and visit a patient. The surgeon produced letters", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "from nurses to dispute the basis for the suspension, but the MEC upheld the decision", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "pending further investigation by an ad hoc committee. Faced with losing his ability to", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "practice at the hospital, the surgeon asked the president to permit him to continue", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "working on a reduced capacity as a surgical assistant. The MEC accepted the request but", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "told the surgeon he had no right to a hearing because he had stipulated to the reduction in", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "capacity in lieu of a suspension. (Id. at p. *5.) The ad hoc committee completed its", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "investigation and recommended the surgeon have his privileges reinstated subject to the", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "6 In addition, Sujan cites a law review comment that claims a report to the NPDB", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "has the effect of blacklisting a physician. (van Geertruyden, The Fox Guarding the", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "Henhouse: How the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 and State Peer", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "Review Protection Statutes Have Helped Protect Bad Faith Peer Review in the Medical", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "Community (2001) 18 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol’y 239, 257; see also Van Tassel,", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "Blacklisted: The Constitutionality of The Federal System for Publishing Reports of", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "“Bad” Doctors in the National Practitioner Data Bank (2012) 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 2031.)", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "The article appears to have based its claim of blacklisting on anecdotal evidence and does", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "not satisfy Sujan’s burden of establishing the futility exception to the doctrine of", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "exhaustion of administrative remedies.", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "7 “The prohibition on citing unpublished California decisions (Cal. Rules of", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "Court, rule 8.1115(a)) does not apply to unpublished decisions from the lower federal", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "courts. [Citation.] Like published decisions of the lower federal courts, unpublished", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "decisions are not binding on us even on questions of federal law, but they are persuasive", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "authority.” (Barriga v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 299, 316, fn. 8.)", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "32", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "requirement that he have a surgical proctor present during all surgeries, and the MEC", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "upheld the recommendation. (Id. at pp. *5-*6.) About a month and a half later, the", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "hospital gave the surgeon the choice between appealing the decision of the MEC or", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "accepting the condition that a proctor be present during surgeries, and the surgeon chose", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "the latter option. (Id. at p. *6.) Later, the president of the medical staff again summarily", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "suspended the surgeon’s privileges, but after consulting with the MEC reinstated his", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "“proctor restricted privileges.” The MEC upheld the restricted reinstatement and", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "eventually voted to fully reinstate the surgeon with no requirement of a proctor. (Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "pp. *6-*7.)", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "When the surgeon sued in federal district court for damages, the hospital and", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "individual defendants moved to dismiss and argued the surgeon’s state law claims were", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "barred for failure to exhaust administrative and judicial remedies. (Ennix, supra, 2007", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "U.S. Dist. Lexis 66032 at p. *9.) The district court treated the motion to dismiss as a", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment. (Ibid.) The court first observed that under California and", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "Ninth Circuit authority a physician whose staff privileges are modified because of a", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "hospital peer review process may not sue for damages without first exhausting available", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "administrative and judicial remedies. (Id. at pp. *9-*13, citing Westlake, supra, 17", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "Cal.3d 465 & Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital (9th Cir. 1988) 844 F.2d 646.) Although", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "33", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "the surgeon conceded he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, relying", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "on Joel he argued he was excused from doing do.8 (Ennix, at p. *18.)", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "The district court distinguished Joel. “The key to the holding [in Joel] was that", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "the settlement agreement provided for the full reinstatement of [the physician’s]", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "privileges. The Westlake requirement could be excused where ‘the administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "machinery has been commenced, but the parties resolve the dispute before its completion", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "through settlement which awards the physician the maximum benefit he or she could have", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "been afforded administratively.’” (Ennix, supra, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66032 at p. *19,", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "quoting Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 366-367, italics added.) “The results of the", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "agreements with plaintiff in this case were incomplete. In [both cases of summary", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "suspension], the parties resolved their disputes by compromise—an agreement that", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "plaintiff be limited to surgical-assisting privileges and then to imposed proctorship.", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "Plaintiff does not dispute that full reinstatement could have been sought had he exercised", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "his hearing rights. If he thought he was entitled to a hearing despite the mutual", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "acceptance of an alternative action against his privileges, he ‘could have sought a writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "mandate from the superior court to compel the Hospital to begin the hearing.’ [Citation.]", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "Joel is inapplicable here.” (Ennix, at pp. *19-*20.) Therefore, the district court granted", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "summary judgment against the surgeon on his state law causes of action. (Id. at p. *21.)", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "8 The surgeon in Ennix also argued the exhaustion doctrine did not apply to him", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "because the hospital’s administrative remedies were unavailable or inadequate. (Ennix,", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "supra, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66032 at pp. *13, *20-*21.)", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "34", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "Like the surgeon in Ennix, Sujan’s agreement to lift his summary suspension and", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "to reinstate his admitting practices was “incomplete.” (Ennix, supra, 2007 U.S. Dist.", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "Lexis 66032 at p. *20.) Therefore, like the district court in Ennix, we find the futility", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "exception recognized in Joel does not apply in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "Sujan contends the trial court erred because it focused solely on Joel’s analysis of", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "the second Westlake consideration—maximization of relief—and did not weigh all four", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "considerations. Even if the trial court was required to weigh all four considerations,", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "something we need not decide here, failure to do so is not sufficient ground for reversal.", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "“Because ‘we review “the ruling, not the rationale,”’ on this appeal from summary", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "judgment, we may affirm on any basis supported by the record and the law.” (Vulk v.", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "State Farm General Ins. Co. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 243, 255, quoting Skillin v. Rady", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "Children’s Hospital & Health Center (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 35, 43.)", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "Overall, we find the remaining Westlake considerations do not support Sujan’s", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "assertion that exhaustion of remedies would have been futile. In Joel, the physician", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "entered into the agreement to be fully reinstated in exchange for withdrawing his request", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "for a review hearing that he submitted after his summary suspension had already been", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "reported to the California Medical Board and the NPDB. (Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "p. 364.) The appellate court found the settlement mitigated the physician’s damages", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "caused by the suspension because, had the parties not settled and the physician had", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "pursued the review hearing and received a full reinstatement, the damages “would", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "35", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "arguably be greater, if for no other reason than the period of suspension would have been", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "longer.” (Id. at p. 367.)", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "Again, Joel is distinguishable. The settlement in that case mitigated the", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "physician’s damages because his summary suspension, that had already been reported,", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "was lifted much sooner than it would have remained in place had he proceeded with the", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "review hearing and received the same maximum relief he obtained from the settlement.", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "Once more, the key fact in Joel was that the settlement to reinstate the physician provided", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "him with everything he could have achieved in a review hearing, i.e., full vindication that", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "the suspension had been unwarranted. Although the agreement in this case short-", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "circuited a review hearing and the requirement to report Sujan’s summary suspension to", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "the California Medical Board, the highly conditioned lifting of his suspension simply did", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "not represent the maximum relief he might have achieved in a review hearing.", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "The fourth consideration also favors applying the exhaustion doctrine to Sujan.", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "To repeat, in Joel the appellate court found that requiring the physician to exhaust his", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "administrative remedies would not have resulted in any judicial efficiency because the", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "settlement demonstrated the hospital had already exercised its expertise by reevaluating", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "the issue of staff competency on the merits, finding the summary suspension had been", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "unwarranted from the beginning, and concluding a full and unconditional reinstatement", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "was in the best interest of the hospital and its patients. (Joel, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "p. 369.) The fact the settlement gave the physician everything he wanted and could have", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "achieved from a review hearing was again key because it demonstrated the settlement", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "36", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "was an acknowledgement by the hospital that all parties would be best served by a speedy", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "resolution. (Ibid.)", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "In contrast, the agreement here—with its restatement of the reasons for the", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "summary suspension and of the hospital’s continuing concerns, and the onerous terms", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "and conditions imposed on Sujan—does not necessarily reflect a reevaluation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "merits of the summary suspension by the MEC and a decision that a full and", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "unconditional reinstatement was in the best interest of the hospital and its patients. On", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "these facts, we cannot say that requiring Sujan to pursue a review hearing to its", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "completion would not have resulted in any judicial efficiency.", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "Finally, Sujan argues the third consideration—the potential of the administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "hearing to unearth evidence and produce a record that might be used in a subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "lawsuit—weighs against application of the exhaustion doctrine in his case because “the", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "record of any administrative proceeding concerning [his] suspension would have been", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "confidential under Evidence Code section 1157.” Defendants respond that Joel, supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "68 Cal.App.4th at pages 367-368, overstated the importance of Evidence Code section", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "1157.", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "As defendants contend, the bar on discovery found in Evidence Code section 1157", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "does not apply in an administrative mandate proceeding in the superior court seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "reinstatement of admitting privileges, and the courts have not yet decided whether peer", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "review documents discovered in a successful mandate proceeding are admissible in a", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "subsequent suit for damages. (Evid. Code, § 1157, subd. (c); California Eye Institute v.", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "37", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1477, 1481 [holding the “narrow exception to", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "section 1157” permits discovery by physician of peer review records “only if he/she is", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "‘requesting hospital staff privileges’” in administrative mandamus proceeding]; id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "p. 1486, fn. 5 [“We are not presently called on to determine whether evidence discovered", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "in a successful petition for administrative mandamus would be admissible should a", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "damage action subsequently be filed.”].) But we need not resolve that question here.", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "Joel did not hold that all four Westlake considerations must be satisfied before requiring", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "compliance with the exhaustion doctrine, and Sujan has cited no authority that does.", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "In sum, we hold Sujan has not met his burden of demonstrating that exhaustion of", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "his administrative remedies would have been futile. Therefore, the trial court correctly", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "granted summary judgment based on Sujan’s failure to exhaust his available remedies.", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "B. Defendants Are Entitled to Recover Attorney Fees from Sujan as Provided", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "in the Bylaws.", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "Sujan argues the trial court erred by granting defendants their attorney fees. First,", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "he argues the attorney fee provision in the bylaws conflicts with and is preempted by", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "section 809.9, a specific statute that governs fees to the prevailing party in a lawsuit that", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "challenges peer review decisions, and he argues defendants were not entitled to their fees", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "under that statute because his lawsuit was not frivolous or prosecuted in bad faith. In the", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "alternative, Sujan argues the contractual fee provision under the bylaws is unconscionable", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "and the trial court erred by enforcing it. We disagree and conclude defendants, as the", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "prevailing parties, were permitted to recover their attorney fees as provided in the bylaws.", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "38", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "“‘In general, the trial court’s determination whether a party is entitled to attorneys’", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "fees, and the amount of any such award, is reviewed under the abuse of discretion", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "standard. [Citation.] Where, as here, however, the propriety of the award turns on an", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "issue of statutory interpretation or implicates the legal basis for such an award, the issue", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "is reviewed de novo as a question of law.’” (Haun v. Pagano (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "667, 674-675.) “‘The normal rules of appellate review apply to an order granting or", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "denying attorney fees; i.e., the order is presumed correct, all intendments and", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "presumptions are indulged to support the order, conflicts in the evidence are resolved in", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "favor of the prevailing party, and the trial court’s resolution of factual disputes is", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "conclusive.’” (Baer v. Tedder (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1139, 1149.)", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "1. Attorney Fees in this Lawsuit Are Governed by the Contractual Fee", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "Provision, Not Business and Professions Code section 809.9.", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "“‘California follows the “American rule,” under which each party to a lawsuit", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "ordinarily must pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citations.] Code of Civil Procedure", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "section 1021 codifies the rule, providing that the measure and mode of attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "compensation are left to the agreement of the parties “[e]xcept as attorney’s fees are", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "specifically provided for by statute.’ (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 516.)", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "‘Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 provides, in subdivision (a)(10), that attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "fees are “allowable as costs under [Code of Civil Procedure s]ection 1032” when they are", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "“authorized by” either “Contract,” “Statute,” or “Law.” Thus, recoverable litigation costs", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "do include attorney fees, but only when the party entitled to costs has a legal basis,", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "39", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "independent of the cost statutes and grounded in an agreement, statute, or other law, upon", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "which to claim recovery of attorney fees.’ (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599,", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "606 (Santisas).)” (Martinez v. SAI Long Beach B, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 367, 373-", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "374.)", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "As noted, ante, in addition to requiring a physician to exhaust review and appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "remedies before filing suit, section 8.1-5 of the bylaws provides: “Any practitioner who", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "fails to exhaust the remedies (including all hearing and appeal remedies) provided in", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "these bylaws before initiating legal action shall be liable to pay the full costs, including", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "legal fees, required to respond to such legal action.”9 Section 809.9 provides in relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "part: “In any suit brought to challenge an action taken or a restriction imposed which is", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "required to be reported pursuant to Section 805, the court shall, at the conclusion of the", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "action, award to a substantially prevailing party the cost of the suit, including a", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "reasonable attorney’s fee, if the other party’s conduct in bringing, defending, or litigating", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "the suit was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith.”", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "In its order, the trial court correctly observed that section 809.9 does not “indicate", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "it is the exclusive basis for seeking attorney’s fees involving an action challenging his", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "9 There is no question the bylaws and the fee provision contained therein were", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "part of the contract between Sujan and CRMC. Section 16.5 of the bylaws specifically", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "states: “Upon adoption and approval as provided in Article XV, in consideration of the", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "mutual promises and agreements contained in these bylaws, the hospital and the Medical", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "Staff, intending to be legally bound, agree that these Bylaws shall constitute part of the", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "contractual relationship existing between the hospital and the medical staff members,", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "both individually and collectively.” (See Smith v Adventist Health System/West (2010)", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "182 Cal.App.4th 729, 753 [nearly identical language in hospital bylaws “removed any", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "uncertainty . . . that they form part of a contract between the hospital and medical staff", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "members”].)", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "40", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "suspension,” and the court found “no basis to conclude that section 809.9 nullified the", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "contracts present here.” True, section 809.9 does not explicitly state it is the exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "basis for attorney fees in lawsuits challenging a peer review decision, but that does not", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "necessarily end our analysis. Section 8.1-5 of the bylaws and section 809.9 differ in", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "significant ways, notably in that the contractual term is one-sided in favor of the hospital", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "whereas section 809.9 applies generally to the prevailing party, and section 809.9 only", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "applies if the court finds the losing party acted frivolously or in bad faith whereas the", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "contractual term provides fees to the hospital if it prevails in a lawsuit alleging claims", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "that have not been exhausted, regardless of whether the medical staff member’s lawsuit", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "was frivolous. Therefore, if section 809.9 applies to Sujan’s lawsuit, it potentially", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "conflicts with the contractual fee provision.", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "“When attorney fees are specifically provided for by statute, ‘the question is", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "whether the statutory attorney fees provision expressly, or the policy of the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "implicitly, overrides the freedom to contract for a different outcome.’” (Soni v.", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "Cartograph, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1, 11, quoting County of Sacramento v. Sandison", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 646, 651, italics added.) To determine whether a statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "attorney fee provision prevails over a contractual one, we must apply the normal rules of", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "statutory interpretation. (Dorsey v. Superior Court (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 583, 595.)", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "“When a court attempts to discern the meaning of a statute, ‘it is well settled that we must", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "look first to the words of the statute, “because they generally provide the most reliable", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "indicator of legislative intent.” [Citation.] If the statutory language is clear and", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "41", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "unambiguous our inquiry ends. “If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs.” [Citations.]", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "In reading statutes, we are mindful that words are to be given their plain and", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "commonsense meaning.’” (Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 639-", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "640.)", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "On its face, section 809.9 does not apply to every lawsuit challenging the", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "summary suspension of a physician’s admitting privileges. It only applies to a lawsuit", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "“challenging a disciplinary action or restriction reportable under section 805.” (Mir v.", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "Charter Suburban Hospital (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1480-1481, fn. omitted; id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "p. 1475, fn. 3 [“Section 809.9 makes reference to matters required to be reported pursuant", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "to section 805, i.e., to written reports known as ‘805 reports.’”]; see § 805, subd. (a)(7)", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "[defining “‘805 report’”].) Inter alia, an “805 report” must be submitted to the", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "appropriate state licensing agency “within 15 days following the imposition of summary", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "suspension of staff privileges, membership, or employment, if the summary suspension", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "remains in effect for a period in excess of 14 days.” (§ 805, subd. (e); see Lin v. Board of", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "Directors of PrimeCare Medical Network, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1163, 1177, fn. 8;", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "Asiryan v. Medical Staff of Glendale Adventist Medical Center (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "947, 957.)", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "Sujan agreed to the settlement less than 14 days after his summary suspension", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "went into effect, to avoid the suspension from having to be reported under section 805.", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "Relying on the legislative history of section 809.9, however, Sujan contends there is no", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "42", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "sound reason why it should not apply to his case. But the plain language of section 809.9", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "clearly demonstrates it only applies when the lawsuit challenges a peer review decision", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "that must be reported pursuant to section 805. “‘“[W]here . . . the language [of a statute]", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "is clear, there can be no room for interpretation.”’” (Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "Cal.3d 112, 121.) And, the Supreme Court has “consistently stated that when statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "language is clear and unambiguous, resort to the legislative history is unwarranted.”", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "(Bonnell v. Medical Board (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1255, 1264.) Because Sujan’s summary", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "suspension did not remain in place for 14 or more days, CRMC was not required by law", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "to report it to the California Medical Board and section 809.9 simply does not apply here.", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "Therefore, we need not decide whether that statute conflicts with the contractual fee", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "provision.", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "Last, Sujan argues in passing that interpreting section 809.9 to not apply to cases", "paragraph_id": "para_918" }, { "text": "such as his, where the parties agree to settle their dispute during the brief window of time", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "before the summary suspension must be reported, would result in absurd consequences.", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "“We must, of course, interpret statutes to avoid anomalous or absurd results that the", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "Legislature could not have intended and that would frustrate the Legislature’s intent.", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "(Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 491, 522; People v.", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226, 231.) But ‘[w]e must exercise caution using the “absurd", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "result” rule; otherwise, the judiciary risks acting as a “‘super-Legislature’” by rewriting", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "statutes to find an unexpressed legislative intent. [Citation.]’ (California School", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "Employees Assn. v. Governing Bd. of South Orange County Community College Dist.", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "43", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 574, 588.)” (PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "Internat., Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 187-188 (PGA West).)", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "To repeat, section 809.9 is clear on its face that statutory attorney fees are only", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "available in lawsuits challenging a peer review action that must be reported pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "section 805 and when the court finds the lawsuit was frivolous or that the losing party", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "acted in bad faith, so there is no room for an interpretation that might lead to absurd", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "results. We must presume the result Sujan laments is the one the Legislature intended.", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "(Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 640; PGA West, supra, 14", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "Cal.App.5th 156 at p. 188.) Nor do we find any absurdity in that result. The Legislature", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "could have reasonably concluded attorney fees should be recoverable when a party acts", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "frivolously or in bad faith in a lawsuit challenging a peer review decision that must be", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "reported—an act that is otherwise immunized as a matter of law (Bus. & Prof. Code,", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "§ 805, subd. (j))—as opposed to a lawsuit challenging a peer review decision that need", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "not be reported. We are not free to add language to section 809.9 so it will apply more", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "broadly to Sujan’s case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1858; Hampton v. County of San Diego,", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 350 [“Ordinarily we are not free to add text to the language", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "selected by the Legislature.”].)", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "In sum, we conclude section 809.9 does not apply to this lawsuit.", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "2. The Contractual Fee Provision Is Not Unconscionable.", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "The trial court rejected outright Sujan’s argument that the fee provision was an", "paragraph_id": "para_948" }, { "text": "unconscionable and unenforceable contract of adhesion because the cases Sujan cited", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "44", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "“provide for the standards for a valid arbitration agreement,” and he “fail[ed] to cite any", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "legal authorities providing that these standards are to be applied beyond the context of a", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": "dispute over the validity of an arbitration agreement.” But the common law doctrine of", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "unconscionability applies to all contracts, not just arbitration agreements. (Civ. Code,", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "§ 1670.5; OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125; De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "(2018) 5 Cal.5th 966, 978-979; Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th 619, 638.)", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "“The general principles of unconscionability are well established. A contract is", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "unconscionable if one of the parties lacked a meaningful choice in deciding whether to", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "agree and the contract contains terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party.", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "([Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013)] 57 Cal.4th [1109,] 1133.) Under this", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "standard, the unconscionability doctrine ‘“has both a procedural and a substantive", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "element.”’ (Ibid.) ‘The procedural element addresses the circumstances of contract", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "negotiation and formation, focusing on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "power. [Citations.] Substantive unconscionability pertains to the fairness of an", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "agreement’s actual terms and to assessments of whether they are overly harsh or one-", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "sided.’ ([Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC]", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "(2012) 55 Cal.4th [223,] 246 [(Pinnacle)].)” (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, supra, 8 Cal.5th at", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "p. 125.)", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "“Procedural unconscionability ‘addresses the circumstances of contract", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "negotiation and formation, focusing on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "45", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "power.’ (Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 246.) This element is generally established by", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "showing the agreement is a contract of adhesion, i.e., a ‘standardized contract which,", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it.’ [Citation.]", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "Adhesion contracts are subject to scrutiny because they are ‘not the result of freedom or", "paragraph_id": "para_977" }, { "text": "equality of bargaining.’ [Citation.] However, they remain valid and enforceable unless", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "the resisting party can also show that one or more of the contract’s terms is substantively", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "unconscionable or otherwise invalid.” (Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024)", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "16 Cal.5th 478, 492-493 (Ramirez).)", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "“Substantive unconscionability pertains to the fairness of an agreement’s actual", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "terms and to assessments of whether they are overly harsh or one-sided. [Citations.] A", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "contract term is not substantively unconscionable when it merely gives one side a greater", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "benefit; rather, the term must be ‘so one-sided as to “shock the conscience.”’” (Pinnacle,", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 246.) Ultimately, the question of substantive unconscionability", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "turns on “whether the terms of the contract are sufficiently unfair, in view of all relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "circumstances, that a court should withhold enforcement.” (Sanchez v. Valencia Holding", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 912 (Sanchez).)", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "“‘Both procedural and substantive elements must be present to conclude a term is", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "unconscionable, but these required elements need not be present to the same degree.’", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "(Ramirez, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 493.) Courts ‘apply a sliding scale analysis under which", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "“the more substantively oppressive [a] term, the less evidence of procedural", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "46", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable,", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "and vice versa.”’ (Ibid.)” (Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (2026) 19 Cal.5th 93, 103.)", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "“Where, as here, no disputed factual issue bears upon our unconscionability analysis, we", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "review unconscionability de novo.” (Cook v. University of Southern California (2024)", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "102 Cal.App.5th 312, 321.)", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "With respect to the procedural element of unconscionability, section 5.1 of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "bylaws requires a physician to agree to be bound by all the bylaws, including the attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "fee provision, before being appointed to the medical staff or being granted admitting", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "privileges. In support of his opposition to defendants’ motion for attorney fees, Sujan", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "declared that he was required to agree to the bylaws on a “take-it-or-leave-it basis” and", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "he could not negotiate the terms thereof. Defendants submitted no contrary evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "with their reply and merely argued that, even if the court were to find the fee provision is", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "a contract of adhesion, it was not substantively unconscionable. Therefore, we will", "paragraph_id": "para_1007" }, { "text": "assume for the purposes of this appeal that the attorney fee provision is a contract of", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "adhesion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "As for the substantive element, in his opposition Sujan argued the fee provision in", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "the bylaws is unconscionable because it only provides attorney fees to CRMC if it", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "prevails in litigation. The trial court rejected this argument, noting Civil Code section", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "1717 mandates that contractual attorney fee provisions apply reciprocally. However, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "rule of reciprocity under section 1717 does not apply to tort or other non-contract claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "(Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 615; Gil v. Mansano (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 739, 745.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "47", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "“Section 1717 and its reciprocity principles . . . have ‘limited application. [They] cover[]", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "only contract actions, where the theory of the case is breach of contract, and where the", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "contract sued upon itself specifically provides for an award of attorney fees incurred to", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "enforce that contract. [Section 1717’s] only effect is to make an otherwise unilateral", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "right to attorney fees reciprocally binding upon all parties to actions to enforce the", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "contract.’” (Brown Bark III, L.P. v. Haver (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 809, 820.) Because", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "none of Sujan’s claims are based on a contract, section 1717 simply does not apply.", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "In any event, one-sided contract terms are not necessarily unenforceable.", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "“‘“[U]nconscionability turns not only on a ‘one-sided’ result, but also on an absence of", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "‘justification’ for it.”’” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "(2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 117-118 (Armendariz), quoting A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp.", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "(1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 487.) The party seeking to enforce a one-sided contract term", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "must establish “some reasonable justification for such one-sidedness based on ‘business", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "realities,’” and if the need for the special advantage is not explained in the contract itself,", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "it must be established with evidence. (Armendariz, at p. 117.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "Defendants did not argue in their briefs that there is a reasonable business", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "justification for the one-sided fee agreement, but one is apparent on its face. (See Lange", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "v. Monster Energy Co. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 436, 450 [finding “‘reasonable justification", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "for [a] lack of mutuality’ . . . evident on the face” of a contract term].) Fees for the", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "hospital under the bylaws are only recoverable if a member prosecutes a lawsuit in which", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "he or she alleges claims they did not fully exhaust in the peer review process. To repeat,", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "48", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "the exhaustion doctrine from Westlake, supra, 17 Cal.3d 465, “furthers a number of", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "important societal and governmental interests, including: (1) bolstering administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "autonomy; (2) permitting the agency to resolve factual issues, apply its expertise and", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "exercise statutorily delegated remedies; (3) mitigating damages; and (4) promoting", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "judicial economy.” (Rojo v. Kilger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 86.) The salutary benefits of", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "exhausting the peer review process are lost when a physician circumvents it and sues", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "unsuccessfully, and it does not shock the conscience for the bylaws to provide that only", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "the hospital should be permitted to recover its fees in this situation.10", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "Under these circumstances, we conclude the fee provision under the bylaws is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "unconscionable.", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "10 During oral argument, Sujan contended that Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "page 117, strictly limits our analysis to the text of the bylaws or to evidence in the record", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "when determining whether the one-sided fee provision is justified by business realities.", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "Defendant responded that we may consider the wider circumstances and dynamics at play", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "in conjunction with the text of the fee provision.", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "We agree with defendants. The bylaws specifically tether the hospital’s ability to", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "recover fees to a member failing to fully exhaust their peer review remedies before filing", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "suit. Therefore, we may consider the well-settled policy reasons behind the doctrine of", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "exhaustion of remedies when determining whether the one-sided nature of the fee", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "provision is reasonably justified by business realities. (See Sanchez, supra, 61 Cal.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "p. 912 [when determining whether one-sided contract term is substantively", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "unconscionable, courts must consider “all relevant circumstances”].)", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" }, { "text": "49", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "C. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Finding Patel Was Not", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "Liable For Attorney Fees, By Finding Defendants Did Not Properly Introduce Billing", "paragraph_id": "para_1063" }, { "text": "Records From Their Prior Attorneys, and By Applying Lower Hourly Rates to", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "Defendants’ Current Counsel’s Fees.", "paragraph_id": "para_1065" }, { "text": "In their cross-appeal, defendants argue the trial court erred three ways in its order", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "granting in part and denying in part their motion for attorney fees: (1) by finding Patel", "paragraph_id": "para_1067" }, { "text": "was not a signatory to the CRMC bylaws and, therefore, she was not liable for attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "fees; (2) by ruling the declaration in support of defendants’ motion was insufficient to", "paragraph_id": "para_1069" }, { "text": "prove the attorney fees incurred for work performed by prior defense counsel; and (3) by", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "applying a lower hourly rate to the work performed by two partners with defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_1071" }, { "text": "current attorneys. We find no reversible error and affirm the order.", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "1. Defendants Cannot Recover Their Attorney Fees from Patel.", "paragraph_id": "para_1073" }, { "text": "Well after defendants’ motion for attorney fees had been fully briefed and just", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "before the trial court posted its tentative ruling, Patel filed an ex parte application seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_1075" }, { "text": "permission to submit a supplemental opposition to the motion and, if necessary,", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "requesting a continuance of the hearing on the motion to permit defendants to file a", "paragraph_id": "para_1077" }, { "text": "supplemental reply. In her proposed supplemental opposition, Patel argued she was not a", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "member, applicant or practitioner for purposes of section 8.1-5 of the bylaws, so there", "paragraph_id": "para_1079" }, { "text": "was no contractual basis for ordering her to pay attorney fees. Defendants opposed the ex", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "parte application arguing it was untimely, and in the alternative requested permission to", "paragraph_id": "para_1081" }, { "text": "argue the merits at the hearing. In the minute order in which the trial court adopted the", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "50", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "tentative as the final ruling, after neither party requested oral argument on the motion (see", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1)), the court ruled there was no need for a", "paragraph_id": "para_1085" }, { "text": "continuance and found there was no basis to impose fees against Patel because she was", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "not a signatory to the bylaws.", "paragraph_id": "para_1087" }, { "text": "Defendants argue the court erred because Patel’s cause of action for loss of", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "consortium was derivative of or dependent on Sujan’s claims, so she too was required to", "paragraph_id": "para_1089" }, { "text": "establish the unlawfulness of Sujan’s suspension and that he was excused from", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "exhausting his administrative remedies. And, having failed to do so, she cannot escape", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "liability for attorney fees under the bylaws. Patel responds that, regardless of whether her", "paragraph_id": "para_1092" }, { "text": "claim for loss of consortium was legally dependent on Sujan’s claims, she was a", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "nonsignatory to the bylaws and cannot be held liable for attorney fees. We agree with", "paragraph_id": "para_1094" }, { "text": "Patel that she was not liable for attorney fees, but for a different reason.", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" }, { "text": "As defendants state, Patel’s cause of action rises or falls with her husband’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1096" }, { "text": "claims. “‘A cause of action for loss of consortium is, by its nature, dependent on the", "paragraph_id": "para_1097" }, { "text": "existence of a cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse.’” (LeFiell Manufacturing", "paragraph_id": "para_1098" }, { "text": "Co. v. Superior Court (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, 285; see Calatayud v. State of California", "paragraph_id": "para_1099" }, { "text": "(1998) 18 Cal.4th 1057, 1060, fn. 4 [wife’s claim for loss of consortium “is derivative of", "paragraph_id": "para_1100" }, { "text": "and dependent on her husband’s negligence action”].) But that does not necessarily mean", "paragraph_id": "para_1101" }, { "text": "defendants were entitled to recover their attorney fees, pursuant to the bylaws, from both", "paragraph_id": "para_1102" }, { "text": "Sujan and Patel.", "paragraph_id": "para_1103" }, { "text": "51", "paragraph_id": "para_1104" }, { "text": "In a lawsuit alleging contract based causes of action, “A nonsignatory will be", "paragraph_id": "para_1105" }, { "text": "bound by an attorney fees provision in a contract when the nonsignatory party ‘“stands in", "paragraph_id": "para_1106" }, { "text": "the shoes of a party to the contract.”’[11] (Cargill, Inc. v. Souza (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_1107" }, { "text": "962, 966, quoting Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162", "paragraph_id": "para_1108" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th 858, 897.) In that situation, the nonsignatory party is liable for attorney fees", "paragraph_id": "para_1109" }, { "text": "if it would have been entitled to fees if it prevailed. (Blickman Turkus, LP, supra, at", "paragraph_id": "para_1110" }, { "text": "p. 897; Sessions Payroll Management, Inc. v. Noble Construction Co. (2000) 84", "paragraph_id": "para_1111" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th 671, 679.)” (Apex, LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010,", "paragraph_id": "para_1112" }, { "text": "1017-1018.) Put another way, “in cases involving nonsignatories to a contract with an", "paragraph_id": "para_1113" }, { "text": "attorney fee provision, the following rule may be distilled from the applicable cases: A", "paragraph_id": "para_1114" }, { "text": "party is entitled to recover its attorney fees pursuant to a contractual provision only when", "paragraph_id": "para_1115" }, { "text": "the party would have been liable for the fees of the opposing party if the opposing party", "paragraph_id": "para_1116" }, { "text": "had prevailed.” (Real Property Services Corp. v. City of Pasadena (1994) 25", "paragraph_id": "para_1117" }, { "text": "Cal.App.4th 375, 382.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1118" }, { "text": "The same rule applies to nonsignatories and contractual attorney fees related to", "paragraph_id": "para_1119" }, { "text": "tort claims. (Hom v. Petrou (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 459, 466-470 [finding no blanket rule", "paragraph_id": "para_1120" }, { "text": "that nonsignatories cannot recover attorney fees related to tort claims].) Whether a", "paragraph_id": "para_1121" }, { "text": "prevailing nonsignatory party may recover attorney fees for tort claims and, conversely,", "paragraph_id": "para_1122" }, { "text": "should also be liable for those fees if they lose, “is a question of contractual intent.” (Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1123" }, { "text": "11 A nonsignatory may also be entitled to recover attorney fees if they are a third", "paragraph_id": "para_1124" }, { "text": "party beneficiary of the contract. (Cargill, Inc. v. Souza, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_1125" }, { "text": "pp. 966-967.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1126" }, { "text": "52", "paragraph_id": "para_1127" }, { "text": "at p. 470.) “To interpret the scope and meaning of a contractual fees provision, ‘we apply", "paragraph_id": "para_1128" }, { "text": "the ordinary rules of contract interpretation. “Under statutory rules of contract", "paragraph_id": "para_1129" }, { "text": "interpretation, the mutual intention of the parties at the time the contract is formed", "paragraph_id": "para_1130" }, { "text": "governs interpretation. [Citation.] Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely from", "paragraph_id": "para_1131" }, { "text": "the written provisions of the contract. [Citation.] The “clear and explicit” meaning of", "paragraph_id": "para_1132" }, { "text": "these provisions, interpreted in their “ordinary and popular sense,” unless “used by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1133" }, { "text": "parties in a technical sense or a special meaning is given to them by usage” [citation],", "paragraph_id": "para_1134" }, { "text": "controls judicial interpretation. [Citation.] Thus, if the meaning a layperson would", "paragraph_id": "para_1135" }, { "text": "ascribe to contract language is not ambiguous, we apply that meaning.”’” (Id. at p. 465,", "paragraph_id": "para_1136" }, { "text": "quoting Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 608.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1137" }, { "text": "Neither party points to extrinsic evidence of contractual intent in the record, “so", "paragraph_id": "para_1138" }, { "text": "our analysis focuses solely on . . . the language of the [bylaws], which we interpret as a", "paragraph_id": "para_1139" }, { "text": "question of law.” (Hom v. Petrou, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 471.) To repeat, section", "paragraph_id": "para_1140" }, { "text": "8.1-5 of the bylaws unilaterally provides that a physician or other practitioner who sues", "paragraph_id": "para_1141" }, { "text": "for claims that were not fully exhausted in the peer review process “shall be liable to pay", "paragraph_id": "para_1142" }, { "text": "the full costs, including legal fees, required to respond to such legal action.” And,", "paragraph_id": "para_1143" }, { "text": "because Sujan’s and Patel’s causes of action are not based on the bylaws, the rule of", "paragraph_id": "para_1144" }, { "text": "reciprocity under Civil Code section 1717 does not apply. (Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_1145" }, { "text": "p. 615.) In other words, even if Patel had prevailed in the litigation, under the clear terms", "paragraph_id": "para_1146" }, { "text": "of the bylaws, defendants would not have been liable to pay her attorney fees. Therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1147" }, { "text": "defendants cannot recover their attorney fees from Patel. (See Leach v. Home Savings &", "paragraph_id": "para_1148" }, { "text": "53", "paragraph_id": "para_1149" }, { "text": "Loan Assn. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1295, 1306 [attorney fees not recoverable in", "paragraph_id": "para_1150" }, { "text": "noncontract lawsuit to remove a cloud on title to real property because “signatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1151" }, { "text": "defendants [sought] fees from . . . a nonsignatory plaintiff who would have no contractual", "paragraph_id": "para_1152" }, { "text": "or statutory right to receive fees if she had prevailed”].)", "paragraph_id": "para_1153" }, { "text": "In sum, we conclude the trial court properly ruled defendants cannot recover", "paragraph_id": "para_1154" }, { "text": "attorney fees from Patel.", "paragraph_id": "para_1155" }, { "text": "2. Denial of Attorney Fees for Defendants’ Former Attorneys.", "paragraph_id": "para_1156" }, { "text": "Defendants argue they properly introduced evidence of attorney fees billed by", "paragraph_id": "para_1157" }, { "text": "their former attorneys in this litigation, and, in the absence of an evidentiary objection by", "paragraph_id": "para_1158" }, { "text": "Sujan to the declaration in support of the fee motion, the trial court erred by ruling on its", "paragraph_id": "para_1159" }, { "text": "own motion that defendants did not properly introduce records of the fees they incurred", "paragraph_id": "para_1160" }, { "text": "from their former counsel’s representation and denying that portion of their fee request.", "paragraph_id": "para_1161" }, { "text": "Sujan responds that, “[b]y failing to contest the tentative ruling, Defendants have waived", "paragraph_id": "para_1162" }, { "text": "the right to claim that this portion of the court’s ruling is in error.”12 Moreover, Sujan", "paragraph_id": "para_1163" }, { "text": "argues the trial court properly ruled defendants’ declaration was insufficient to introduce", "paragraph_id": "para_1164" }, { "text": "the billing records of their former attorneys. We agree with Sujan.", "paragraph_id": "para_1165" }, { "text": "In support of their motion for attorney fees, defendants submitted the declaration", "paragraph_id": "para_1166" }, { "text": "of Colin M. McGrath, formerly a partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (Manatt),", "paragraph_id": "para_1167" }, { "text": "12 “‘[T]he correct term is “forfeiture” rather than “waiver,” because the former", "paragraph_id": "para_1168" }, { "text": "term refers to a failure to object or to invoke a right, whereas the latter term conveys an", "paragraph_id": "para_1169" }, { "text": "express relinquishment of a right or privilege. [Citations.] As a practical matter, the two", "paragraph_id": "para_1170" }, { "text": "terms on occasion have been used interchangeably.’” (PGA West, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th", "paragraph_id": "para_1171" }, { "text": "at p. 175, fn. 13, quoting In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880, fn. 1.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1172" }, { "text": "54", "paragraph_id": "para_1173" }, { "text": "defendants’ attorneys of record. McGrath declared he had “personal knowledge of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1174" }, { "text": "matters set forth herein, and if called as a witness [he] could and would testify", "paragraph_id": "para_1175" }, { "text": "competently thereto under oath.” McGrath described how, “[i]n the regular course of", "paragraph_id": "para_1176" }, { "text": "business, Manatt’s timekeepers keep detailed, contemporaneous time records,” and he", "paragraph_id": "para_1177" }, { "text": "declared he was “familiar with the work performed by Manatt attorneys on behalf of", "paragraph_id": "para_1178" }, { "text": "Defendants in this matter” and he had personally reviewed the fees and invoices Manatt", "paragraph_id": "para_1179" }, { "text": "“sent to Defendants for payment in this matter.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1180" }, { "text": "However, McGrath also declared he was “familiar with the work performed by", "paragraph_id": "para_1181" }, { "text": "Defendants’ prior counsel in this matter,” having reviewed the fees and invoices from", "paragraph_id": "para_1182" }, { "text": "five other law firms that represented defendants through various stages of the litigation.13", "paragraph_id": "para_1183" }, { "text": "(Italics added.) McGrath declared the attorneys from all six firms who represented", "paragraph_id": "para_1184" }, { "text": "defendants “were cost-efficient in their management and defense of this action,", "paragraph_id": "para_1185" }, { "text": "performing only work that was necessary for the case and the task at hand,” and that he", "paragraph_id": "para_1186" }, { "text": "“carefully reviewed the time entries billed to Defendants” from all six firms and deleted", "paragraph_id": "para_1187" }, { "text": "any entries that appeared to be duplicative. McGrath summarized the billing and attached", "paragraph_id": "para_1188" }, { "text": "copies of the modified invoices sent to defendants from all six firms.", "paragraph_id": "para_1189" }, { "text": "Sujan did not object to any of the evidence submitted with defendants’ fee motion", "paragraph_id": "para_1190" }, { "text": "and he did not argue McGrath’s declaration was insufficient to introduce the billing", "paragraph_id": "para_1191" }, { "text": "records from defendants’ prior attorneys. Yet, in its tentative order, the trial court ruled", "paragraph_id": "para_1192" }, { "text": "the evidence submitted with defendants’ motion was “insufficient to meet the evidentiary", "paragraph_id": "para_1193" }, { "text": "13 In order of appearance, those firms were Nossaman, LLP; Lewis Brisbois;", "paragraph_id": "para_1194" }, { "text": "Barber Ranen, LLP; Daugherty & Lourdan, LLP; and Dinsmore & Shohl.", "paragraph_id": "para_1195" }, { "text": "55", "paragraph_id": "para_1196" }, { "text": "standard in demonstrating the nature and the amount of work performed by their prior", "paragraph_id": "para_1197" }, { "text": "counsels.” The court found McGrath’s declaration and the attached spreadsheets “are not", "paragraph_id": "para_1198" }, { "text": "evidence of the services actually performed by Defendants’ prior counsels.”14", "paragraph_id": "para_1199" }, { "text": "Citing authorities for the propositions that a declaration must state facts showing", "paragraph_id": "para_1200" }, { "text": "the declarant may competently testify to the facts averred therein, and a declaration based", "paragraph_id": "para_1201" }, { "text": "on information and belief instead of personal knowledge is hearsay, the court found", "paragraph_id": "para_1202" }, { "text": "McGrath’s declaration was incompetent to prove the attorney fees for work performed by", "paragraph_id": "para_1203" }, { "text": "defendants’ prior attorneys. “Other than the portion representing fees billed by", "paragraph_id": "para_1204" }, { "text": "Defendants’ present counsels, this exhibit [i.e., the invoices attached to McGrath’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1205" }, { "text": "declaration] is unaccompanied by a declaration by a source with personal knowledge of", "paragraph_id": "para_1206" }, { "text": "the truth of the information stated therein and is therefore inadmissible hearsay.", "paragraph_id": "para_1207" }, { "text": "Therefore, Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to only the fees properly supported", "paragraph_id": "para_1208" }, { "text": "by evidence, that is the fees billed by attorneys of Manatt, . . . and not their prior", "paragraph_id": "para_1209" }, { "text": "counsels.” When neither party requested oral argument on the trial court’s tentative", "paragraph_id": "para_1210" }, { "text": "ruling, the court adopted the tentative as its order denying the motion in part.", "paragraph_id": "para_1211" }, { "text": "By not requesting oral argument on the trial court’s tentative ruling and arguing", "paragraph_id": "para_1212" }, { "text": "McGrath’s declaration was legally sufficient to introduce their former counsel’s billing", "paragraph_id": "para_1213" }, { "text": "records, or, in the alternative, by not timely moving the trial court to reconsider its ruling,", "paragraph_id": "para_1214" }, { "text": "14 Inter alia, the trial court relied on Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. That", "paragraph_id": "para_1215" }, { "text": "statute only applies when a plaintiff “resides out of the state[] or is a foreign corporation,”", "paragraph_id": "para_1216" }, { "text": "and it permits the defendant to apply to the trial court for an order requiring the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_1217" }, { "text": "to post an undertaking in the amount of costs and attorney fees that might be awarded in", "paragraph_id": "para_1218" }, { "text": "the event the defendant prevails. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1030, subd. (a); see Yao v. Superior", "paragraph_id": "para_1219" }, { "text": "Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 331.) It has no application here.", "paragraph_id": "para_1220" }, { "text": "56", "paragraph_id": "para_1221" }, { "text": "defendants have forfeited their claim of error. “It is axiomatic that arguments not raised", "paragraph_id": "para_1222" }, { "text": "in the trial court are forfeited on appeal.” (Kern County Dept. of Child Support Services", "paragraph_id": "para_1223" }, { "text": "v. Camacho (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1038.) “The forfeiture rule generally applies", "paragraph_id": "para_1224" }, { "text": "in all civil and criminal proceedings. [Citations.] The rule is designed to advance", "paragraph_id": "para_1225" }, { "text": "efficiency and deter gamesmanship.” (Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 247,", "paragraph_id": "para_1226" }, { "text": "264.) “[T]he purpose of the forfeiture rule ‘is to encourage parties to bring errors to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1227" }, { "text": "attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.’” (Unzueta v. Akopyan (2019)", "paragraph_id": "para_1228" }, { "text": "42 Cal.App.5th 199, 215, quoting In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1229" }, { "text": "Defendants respond that their mere act of submitting on the tentative ruling does", "paragraph_id": "para_1230" }, { "text": "not constitute a forfeiture of their claim of error on appeal. True, the courts have held a", "paragraph_id": "para_1231" }, { "text": "party is not required to object to a tentative ruling and reiterate arguments made on a", "paragraph_id": "para_1232" }, { "text": "motion to preserve their right to challenge the ruling on appeal. (Lindsay v. Patenaude &", "paragraph_id": "para_1233" }, { "text": "Felix APC (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 335, 343; Parkford Owners for a Better Community v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1234" }, { "text": "Windeshausen (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 216, 226.) But those cases only apply “if the", "paragraph_id": "para_1235" }, { "text": "argument was previously raised.” (Department of Water Resources Environmental", "paragraph_id": "para_1236" }, { "text": "Impact Cases (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 556, 574, fn. 6.) To repeat, Sujan did not object to", "paragraph_id": "para_1237" }, { "text": "any of the evidence defendants submitted with their motion for attorney fees and he did", "paragraph_id": "para_1238" }, { "text": "not argue McGrath’s declaration contained hearsay or was otherwise incompetent to", "paragraph_id": "para_1239" }, { "text": "introduce the billing records of defendants’ former attorneys. That evidentiary argument", "paragraph_id": "para_1240" }, { "text": "was simply not addressed in the moving papers when the trial court issued its tentative", "paragraph_id": "para_1241" }, { "text": "decision. Therefore, once the trial court raised the issue on its own motion and ruled", "paragraph_id": "para_1242" }, { "text": "57", "paragraph_id": "para_1243" }, { "text": "defendants had not properly introduced those billing records, it was incumbent on", "paragraph_id": "para_1244" }, { "text": "defendants to request oral argument and argue the sufficiency of McGrath’s declaration", "paragraph_id": "para_1245" }, { "text": "or make that argument in a motion for reconsideration. Having failed to do so, they", "paragraph_id": "para_1246" }, { "text": "cannot make that argument on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_1247" }, { "text": "Moreover, even if the argument was not forfeited, we agree with Sujan that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1248" }, { "text": "trial court did not err. “In order for the trial court to determine a reasonable rate and a", "paragraph_id": "para_1249" }, { "text": "reasonable number of hours spent on a case, a party must present some evidence to", "paragraph_id": "para_1250" }, { "text": "support its award request. [Citation.] The declaration of an attorney as to the number of", "paragraph_id": "para_1251" }, { "text": "hours worked on a particular case may be sufficient evidence to support an award of", "paragraph_id": "para_1252" }, { "text": "attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records. [Citation.] Indeed, sufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_1253" }, { "text": "evidence to support an attorney fee award may include ‘[d]eclarations of counsel setting", "paragraph_id": "para_1254" }, { "text": "forth the reasonable hourly rate, the number of hours worked and the tasks performed.’", "paragraph_id": "para_1255" }, { "text": "[Citation.] There is no requirement that an attorney provide time records or billing", "paragraph_id": "para_1256" }, { "text": "statements.” (Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 221, 237-238; see Cal.", "paragraph_id": "para_1257" }, { "text": "Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(a) [“Evidence received at a law and motion hearing must be", "paragraph_id": "para_1258" }, { "text": "by declaration or request for judicial notice without testimony or cross-examination,", "paragraph_id": "para_1259" }, { "text": "unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown”].)", "paragraph_id": "para_1260" }, { "text": "“The Evidence Code provides that ‘the testimony of a witness concerning a", "paragraph_id": "para_1261" }, { "text": "particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.’ (Evid.", "paragraph_id": "para_1262" }, { "text": "Code, § 702, subd. (a).) ‘A witness’ personal knowledge of a matter may be shown by", "paragraph_id": "para_1263" }, { "text": "any otherwise admissible evidence, including his own testimony.’ (Id., subd. (b).)”", "paragraph_id": "para_1264" }, { "text": "58", "paragraph_id": "para_1265" }, { "text": "(Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 964, 974.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1266" }, { "text": "“Personal knowledge is ‘“a present recollection of an impression derived from the", "paragraph_id": "para_1267" }, { "text": "exercise of the witness’[s] own senses.”’” (Chambers v. Crown Asset Management, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_1268" }, { "text": "(2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 583, 601, quoting People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 356.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1269" }, { "text": "“Evidentiary rulings by the trial court are reviewed for prejudicial abuse of", "paragraph_id": "para_1270" }, { "text": "discretion. [Citation.] ‘Claims of evidentiary error under California law are reviewed for", "paragraph_id": "para_1271" }, { "text": "prejudice applying the “miscarriage of justice” or “reasonably probable” harmless error", "paragraph_id": "para_1272" }, { "text": "standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, that is embodied in article VI,", "paragraph_id": "para_1273" }, { "text": "section 13 of the California Constitution. Under the Watson harmless error standard, it is", "paragraph_id": "para_1274" }, { "text": "the burden of appellants to show that it is reasonably probable that they would have", "paragraph_id": "para_1275" }, { "text": "received a more favorable result at trial had the error not occurred.’” (Mountain View", "paragraph_id": "para_1276" }, { "text": "Police Dept. v. Krepchin (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 480, 506; see Code Civ. Proc., § 475;", "paragraph_id": "para_1277" }, { "text": "Evid. Code, §§ 353, 354.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1278" }, { "text": "Although McGrath purported to declare he had personal knowledge of every fact", "paragraph_id": "para_1279" }, { "text": "stated in his declaration, and that if called to testify he could do so competently, we agree", "paragraph_id": "para_1280" }, { "text": "with the trial court that the declaration was insufficient with respect to the attorney fees", "paragraph_id": "para_1281" }, { "text": "billed by defendants’ prior attorneys. Presumably, McGrath had personal knowledge of", "paragraph_id": "para_1282" }, { "text": "and could testify about the work performed by his own firm, of its timekeeping and", "paragraph_id": "para_1283" }, { "text": "billing practices, and that the work performed by its lawyers was cost-effective and", "paragraph_id": "para_1284" }, { "text": "necessary. However, at most his declaration establishes he could testify truthfully to", "paragraph_id": "para_1285" }, { "text": "having received and reviewed the invoices sent to him from the other firms. As the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_1286" }, { "text": "59", "paragraph_id": "para_1287" }, { "text": "court noted, McGrath simply did not lay a sufficient foundation to establish he had", "paragraph_id": "para_1288" }, { "text": "personal knowledge of the truth of the information contained within the invoices from", "paragraph_id": "para_1289" }, { "text": "those other firms.", "paragraph_id": "para_1290" }, { "text": "In effect, the portions of McGrath’s declaration addressing attorney fees billed by", "paragraph_id": "para_1291" }, { "text": "defendants’ prior firms is based solely on information and belief. “[I]t is true that an", "paragraph_id": "para_1292" }, { "text": "affidavit is normally presumed to state matters personally known to the affiant and lacks", "paragraph_id": "para_1293" }, { "text": "evidentiary value, in a variety of civil contexts, when based on information and belief, or", "paragraph_id": "para_1294" }, { "text": "hearsay.” (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 87; see Kendall v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1295" }, { "text": "Barker (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 619, 624 [“A statement made without personal knowledge", "paragraph_id": "para_1296" }, { "text": "and solely upon information and belief is hearsay and no proof of the facts contained", "paragraph_id": "para_1297" }, { "text": "therein”].) “It is decidedly not true, however, that an affidavit upon information and", "paragraph_id": "para_1298" }, { "text": "belief is an anomaly in the law, bereft of legal significance.” (City of Santa Cruz, at", "paragraph_id": "para_1299" }, { "text": "p. 87.) An affidavit may properly allege facts based solely on information and belief", "paragraph_id": "para_1300" }, { "text": "when a statute expressly or impliedly permits it, or when “the facts would otherwise be", "paragraph_id": "para_1301" }, { "text": "difficult or impossible to establish.” (Ibid.) Defendants point to no statute that permits", "paragraph_id": "para_1302" }, { "text": "declarations in support of motions for attorney fees to be based on information and belief.", "paragraph_id": "para_1303" }, { "text": "And nothing in the record supports the inference that it would have been impossible or", "paragraph_id": "para_1304" }, { "text": "especially difficult for defendants to obtain declarations from attorneys with their prior", "paragraph_id": "para_1305" }, { "text": "firms, based on personal knowledge, to properly introduce into evidence their billing", "paragraph_id": "para_1306" }, { "text": "invoices in support of the fee motion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1307" }, { "text": "60", "paragraph_id": "para_1308" }, { "text": "Last, we reject defendants’ suggestion that the trial court abused its discretion by", "paragraph_id": "para_1309" }, { "text": "acting on its own motion to address the evidentiary sufficiency of McGrath’s declaration.", "paragraph_id": "para_1310" }, { "text": "“[A] court may find evidence to be inadmissible without an objection having been raised", "paragraph_id": "para_1311" }, { "text": "by a party.” (Estate of Herzog (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 894, 911.) It has been suggested", "paragraph_id": "para_1312" }, { "text": "“this power should be exercised only where the evidence is irrelevant, unreliable,", "paragraph_id": "para_1313" }, { "text": "misleading, or prejudicial, and that relevant and useful evidence that is merely", "paragraph_id": "para_1314" }, { "text": "incompetent under technical exclusionary rules ought to be received in the absence of", "paragraph_id": "para_1315" }, { "text": "objection by counsel’” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017)", "paragraph_id": "para_1316" }, { "text": "9 Cal.App.5th 162, 173), and that the proponent should be given the opportunity to cure", "paragraph_id": "para_1317" }, { "text": "the defect before the court excludes evidence on technical grounds (id. at p. 174). Here,", "paragraph_id": "para_1318" }, { "text": "the trial court gave defendants notice in the tentative ruling of its intention to exclude the", "paragraph_id": "para_1319" }, { "text": "billing records of their former attorneys, yet defendants did not request oral argument on", "paragraph_id": "para_1320" }, { "text": "the tentative or request leave to cure the defect, for example, by submitting declarations", "paragraph_id": "para_1321" }, { "text": "from their former attorneys to prove the hourly rate and number of hours they reasonably", "paragraph_id": "para_1322" }, { "text": "spent on the defense and billed to defendants. By not doing so, they cannot now claim", "paragraph_id": "para_1323" }, { "text": "the ruling was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1324" }, { "text": "Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying", "paragraph_id": "para_1325" }, { "text": "defendants’ request for attorney fees incurred by representation from their former", "paragraph_id": "para_1326" }, { "text": "attorneys.", "paragraph_id": "para_1327" }, { "text": "61", "paragraph_id": "para_1328" }, { "text": "3. Reduced Hourly Rate for Partners.", "paragraph_id": "para_1329" }, { "text": "Last, defendants argue the trial court erred by ruling they were limited to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1330" }, { "text": "reasonable hourly rates charged in the Riverside County area, and reducing the hourly", "paragraph_id": "para_1331" }, { "text": "rate claimed for work performed by two partners with defense counsel’s firm. We find", "paragraph_id": "para_1332" }, { "text": "no abuse of discretion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1333" }, { "text": "“The courts repeatedly have stated that the trial court is in the best position to", "paragraph_id": "para_1334" }, { "text": "value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her courtroom [citation], and this", "paragraph_id": "para_1335" }, { "text": "includes the determination of the hourly rate that will be used in the lodestar calculus.", "paragraph_id": "para_1336" }, { "text": "[Citation.] In making its calculation, the court may rely on its own knowledge and", "paragraph_id": "para_1337" }, { "text": "familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1338" }, { "text": "attorney requesting fees [citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which", "paragraph_id": "para_1339" }, { "text": "that skill was applied [citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing", "paragraph_id": "para_1340" }, { "text": "fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (569 East County", "paragraph_id": "para_1341" }, { "text": "Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1342" }, { "text": "In its fee motion and the supporting declaration of McGrath, defendants claimed", "paragraph_id": "para_1343" }, { "text": "the hourly rates at which attorneys with Manatt billed for their services were reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_1344" }, { "text": "based on prevailing rates for similarly experienced attorneys in the Los Angeles and San", "paragraph_id": "para_1345" }, { "text": "Francisco areas. In total, defendants requested an award of $448,317.50 in attorney fees", "paragraph_id": "para_1346" }, { "text": "billed by Manatt. In its order, the trial court stated it had no issue with the total number", "paragraph_id": "para_1347" }, { "text": "of hours claimed by four attorneys, including McGrath (558.7), and had no issue with the", "paragraph_id": "para_1348" }, { "text": "hourly rates claimed for two associate attorneys ($515 and $425, respectively). However,", "paragraph_id": "para_1349" }, { "text": "62", "paragraph_id": "para_1350" }, { "text": "the court indicated the hourly rate of $875 claimed by both McGrath and Charles Weir,", "paragraph_id": "para_1351" }, { "text": "another partner with Manatt, “exceeds the prevailing hourly rate for attorneys practicing", "paragraph_id": "para_1352" }, { "text": "in the community, which in this case is Riverside County.” Therefore, the court adjusted", "paragraph_id": "para_1353" }, { "text": "the hourly rate for Weir downward from $875 to $650 and for McGrath downward from", "paragraph_id": "para_1354" }, { "text": "$875 to $550, which the court found were “reasonable” rates. Applying those lower", "paragraph_id": "para_1355" }, { "text": "hourly rates, the court awarded defendants a total of $313,830.00 in attorney fees, or", "paragraph_id": "para_1356" }, { "text": "$134,487.50 less than what defendants had requested for work performed by their", "paragraph_id": "para_1357" }, { "text": "attorneys with Manatt.", "paragraph_id": "para_1358" }, { "text": "“‘The “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional", "paragraph_id": "para_1359" }, { "text": "services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it", "paragraph_id": "para_1360" }, { "text": "will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong”’—", "paragraph_id": "para_1361" }, { "text": "meaning that it abused its discretion.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_1362" }, { "text": "1084, 1095.) “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’", "paragraph_id": "para_1363" }, { "text": "i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.", "paragraph_id": "para_1364" }, { "text": "‘California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and", "paragraph_id": "para_1365" }, { "text": "the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate", "paragraph_id": "para_1366" }, { "text": "attorneys’ fee award.’ [Citation.] The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1367" }, { "text": "community for similar work.” (Ibid.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1368" }, { "text": "“The relevant ‘community’ is generally based on where the services are rendered,", "paragraph_id": "para_1369" }, { "text": "i.e., where the court is located.” (Tidrick v. FCA LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147,", "paragraph_id": "para_1370" }, { "text": "1157.) “[A] court’s use of reasonable rates in the local community, as an integral part of", "paragraph_id": "para_1371" }, { "text": "63", "paragraph_id": "para_1372" }, { "text": "the initial lodestar equation, is one of the means of providing some objectivity to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1373" }, { "text": "process of determining reasonable attorney fees. Such objectivity is ‘“‘vital to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1374" }, { "text": "prestige of the bar and the courts.’”’” (Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_1375" }, { "text": "1233, 1243, quoting Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1376" }, { "text": "Defendants state they “did not seek out or attempt to engage a local Riverside", "paragraph_id": "para_1377" }, { "text": "County firm to handle this matter,” and argue “they should not have had to do so in order", "paragraph_id": "para_1378" }, { "text": "to be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees when they prevailed in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1379" }, { "text": "action.” They also assert CRMC is owned by a corporation that operates hospitals", "paragraph_id": "para_1380" }, { "text": "nationwide, and it should not be penalized for not hiring “inexperienced and unfamiliar", "paragraph_id": "para_1381" }, { "text": "local counsel” in every market.15", "paragraph_id": "para_1382" }, { "text": "A trial court may deviate from the default rule and award fees based on higher", "paragraph_id": "para_1383" }, { "text": "hourly rates in the attorney’s “home” market “where justified by the circumstances.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1384" }, { "text": "(Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26,", "paragraph_id": "para_1385" }, { "text": "72.) For example, “‘in the unusual circumstance that local counsel is unavailable,’ or that", "paragraph_id": "para_1386" }, { "text": "‘hiring local counsel was impracticable,’ the trial court is not limited to the use of local", "paragraph_id": "para_1387" }, { "text": "rates and may instead use the hourly rate of out-of-town counsel from a higher fee market", "paragraph_id": "para_1388" }, { "text": "in calculating the lodestar amount.” (Marshall v. Webster (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 275,", "paragraph_id": "para_1389" }, { "text": "286.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1390" }, { "text": "15 Here too, Sujan argues defendants forfeited this claim of error by not objecting", "paragraph_id": "para_1391" }, { "text": "to the tentative ruling. Defendants did argue in their motion that the prevailing rates in", "paragraph_id": "para_1392" }, { "text": "the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas were reasonable, so we conclude their mere", "paragraph_id": "para_1393" }, { "text": "submission to the tentative ruling did not forfeit their claim of error on this point.", "paragraph_id": "para_1394" }, { "text": "64", "paragraph_id": "para_1395" }, { "text": "However, the main decision defendants cite in support of their argument", "paragraph_id": "para_1396" }, { "text": "emphasizes the trial court’s broad discretion when deciding whether to apply or to", "paragraph_id": "para_1397" }, { "text": "deviate from the default rule. “While courts tend to default to the rates in the location in", "paragraph_id": "para_1398" }, { "text": "which the case was litigated to determine reasonableness [citation], the law does not", "paragraph_id": "para_1399" }, { "text": "require this approach. [Citation.] This is because the court’s determination of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1400" }, { "text": "relevant legal ‘“market rate” . . . lie[s] within [its] broad discretion.’ [Citation.] In", "paragraph_id": "para_1401" }, { "text": "setting a reasonable rate, the court may consider various factors beyond the applicable", "paragraph_id": "para_1402" }, { "text": "legal community, such as the attorney’s skill and experience, the nature of the work", "paragraph_id": "para_1403" }, { "text": "performed, the relevant area of expertise, and the attorney’s customary billing rates.", "paragraph_id": "para_1404" }, { "text": "[Citation.] As a result, the trial court is not legally confined to the four corners of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1405" }, { "text": "county where the case is tried to determine a reasonable rate.” (Hoglund v. Sierra", "paragraph_id": "para_1406" }, { "text": "Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 56, 82, first italics in", "paragraph_id": "para_1407" }, { "text": "original, other italics added.)", "paragraph_id": "para_1408" }, { "text": "Nothing in the record supports the implication in defendants’ brief that it was", "paragraph_id": "para_1409" }, { "text": "impossible or impracticable for them to retain competent local counsel. The trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_1410" }, { "text": "could have reasonably determined, based on its experience and knowledge of the local", "paragraph_id": "para_1411" }, { "text": "legal community, that defendants could have obtained representation in the Riverside", "paragraph_id": "para_1412" }, { "text": "County area by attorneys with similar experience and expertise.", "paragraph_id": "para_1413" }, { "text": "Moreover, it bears repeating here that we must afford to the trial court great", "paragraph_id": "para_1414" }, { "text": "deference when reviewing a ruling for abuse of discretion. “As to what such showing", "paragraph_id": "para_1415" }, { "text": "requires, it has been described in terms of a decision that ‘exceeds the bounds of reason’", "paragraph_id": "para_1416" }, { "text": "65", "paragraph_id": "para_1417" }, { "text": "(People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 920), or one that is arbitrary, capricious,", "paragraph_id": "para_1418" }, { "text": "patently absurd, or even whimsical. (See, e.g., People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler", "paragraph_id": "para_1419" }, { "text": "(2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 390 [‘“‘arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd’”’]; People v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1420" }, { "text": "Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 88 [ruling ‘“‘falls “outside the bounds of reason”’”’];", "paragraph_id": "para_1421" }, { "text": "People v. Linkenauger (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1603, 1614 [‘arbitrary, whimsical, or", "paragraph_id": "para_1422" }, { "text": "capricious’].) In [a more] recent observation on the subject, our Supreme Court said that", "paragraph_id": "para_1423" }, { "text": "‘A ruling that constitutes an abuse of discretion has been described as one that is “so", "paragraph_id": "para_1424" }, { "text": "irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.”’ (Sargon", "paragraph_id": "para_1425" }, { "text": "Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773.)”", "paragraph_id": "para_1426" }, { "text": "(Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1051 [trial", "paragraph_id": "para_1427" }, { "text": "court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees].)", "paragraph_id": "para_1428" }, { "text": "On this record, we simply cannot conclude the trial court’s ruling on the", "paragraph_id": "para_1429" }, { "text": "reasonable hourly rates for defense counsel exceeded the bounds of reason or was", "paragraph_id": "para_1430" }, { "text": "arbitrary and capricious.16", "paragraph_id": "para_1431" }, { "text": "16 In addition, we find the court’s selection of a $100 difference between the", "paragraph_id": "para_1432" }, { "text": "hourly rate for Weir’s and McGrath’s work was not an abuse of discretion. At the time of", "paragraph_id": "para_1433" }, { "text": "the motion, Weir had been practicing for 24 years whereas McGrath had been practicing", "paragraph_id": "para_1434" }, { "text": "for half that time.", "paragraph_id": "para_1435" }, { "text": "66", "paragraph_id": "para_1436" }, { "text": "III.", "paragraph_id": "para_1437" }, { "text": "DISPOSITION", "paragraph_id": "para_1438" }, { "text": "The judgment and postjudgment order on attorney fees are affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_1439" }, { "text": "Defendants shall recover their costs in plaintiffs’ appeal. Plaintiffs shall recover", "paragraph_id": "para_1440" }, { "text": "their costs in defendants’ cross-appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)", "paragraph_id": "para_1441" }, { "text": "CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1442" }, { "text": "McKINSTER", "paragraph_id": "para_1443" }, { "text": "Acting P. J.", "paragraph_id": "para_1444" }, { "text": "We concur:", "paragraph_id": "para_1445" }, { "text": "MILLER", "paragraph_id": "para_1446" }, { "text": "J.", "paragraph_id": "para_1447" }, { "text": "RAPHAEL", "paragraph_id": "para_1448" }, { "text": "J.", "paragraph_id": "para_1449" } ], "word_count": 17316, "cites": [ "936 F.3d 841", "844 F.2d 646" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "58bd6b6c0d530838afcab3edb905bc82de4754b5329e5c72c3979059b27b2fcd", "source_url": "https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E084185.PDF", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T07:16:35.396+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16", "neighbors": [ { "id": "us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05", "name": "Elliott v. Jose", "decided": "2026-10-05", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05" }, { "id": "us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02", "name": "State of Iowa v. Scott A. Belt", "decided": "2026-10-02", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02" }, { "id": "us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30", "name": "Matter of Garnet Health Med. Ctr. v. People", "decided": "2026-09-30", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30" }, { "id": "us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23", "name": "In re A.H.", "decided": "2026-09-23", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23" }, { "id": "us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17", "name": "Sonic Drive-In, Keene, TX, LLC v. Leigh Anne Miller, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Matthew Davis", "decided": "2026-09-17", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17" }, { "id": "us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17", "name": "Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0530", "decided": "2026-09-17", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17" }, { "id": "us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16", "name": "Lorie Jean Lisandrillo v. Renee Palozzi", "decided": "2026-09-16", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16" }, { "id": "us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04", "name": "Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v. HHS", "decided": "2026-09-04", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04" }, { "id": "us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03", "name": "Jenkins v. McLaughlin Body Co.", "decided": "2026-09-03", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03" }, { "id": "us:calctapp-e086667-2026-08-31", "name": "In re A.H.", "decided": "2026-08-31", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e086667-2026-08-31", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e086667-2026-08-31", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e086667-2026-08-31" } ], "verification": { "stored_sha256": "58bd6b6c0d530838afcab3edb905bc82de4754b5329e5c72c3979059b27b2fcd", "recomputed_sha256": "58bd6b6c0d530838afcab3edb905bc82de4754b5329e5c72c3979059b27b2fcd", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-11-03T10:19:20.136Z" }, "verification_scope": { "stored_hash_is_source_verification": false, "official_source_comparison": "not_performed", "legal_review": "not_assessed" }, "decision_object": { "schema_version": "1", "object_id": "decision:us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16", "judgment_class": "E", "operative_part": "not_in_register", "cites_count": 2, "word_count": 17316, "decision_url": null }, "agent_links": { "agent_root": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json", "agent_overview": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview" } }, "hash": "sha256:8ec5a511a9ceb0f28965f0261df9a5213ae9794da1c8c35303caf07d26e80b9f", "version": "legal-2026-11-03", "expires": "2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T08:46:54", "content_hash": "sha256:8ec5a511a9ceb0f28965f0261df9a5213ae9794da1c8c35303caf07d26e80b9f", "revalidate_after": "2026-11-03T11:19:22.336Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }