Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Suit Over Entreaties on Facebook to Dr. Phil Was a SLAPP
P.J. Edmon Says Criticisms of Clinic Were Protected Speech, Probability of Prevailing on Merits Not Shown
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has affirmed the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation action against a woman who, on her Facebook page, entreated television’s Dr. Phil to cease giving favorable attention to a entreated substance abuse and mental health treatment facility which, she asserted, is a “DANGEROUS PLACE.”
Presiding Justice Lee Edmon of Div. Three authored the unpublished opinion, filed Wednesday. It upholds an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Keosian in favor of defendant Wendy McEntyre.
The targets of McEntyre’s postings are Creative Care, a facility in Woodland Hills, and Dr. Morteza Khaleghi, a co-owner of the facility who frequently appears on the syndicated talk show hosted by psychologist Phillip Calvin McGraw, known as “Dr. Phil.”
Her assaults, Edmon wrote, meet the first prong of the facility anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, in that they are comments in a public forum on a public issue, which are protected speech. Creative Care and McEntyre cannot show a probability of prevailing on the merits, under the second prong, she said, because the comments did not constitute actionable defamation.
Public Issue
The plaintiffs acknowledged that Facebook is a public forum but denied that the level of care provided at their facility is a matter of public interest. Disagreeing, Edmon wrote:
“Her statements were made on a widely known and used social media platform and were directed to the general public and to Dr. Phil, who himself commands a public television audience….Thus, the statements were communicated to the public and not just to a discrete group of people, and, moreover, targeted an audience interested in mental health issues via Dr. Phil.”
She added:
“The purpose of McEntyre’s speech was to inform consumers about using Creative Care by trying to get Creative Care’s most visible and public advocate—Dr. Phil—to stop supporting and advertising its services.”
Second Prong
Edmon concluded that the postings do not give rise to a cause of action for defamation.
In her first posting, on July 4, 2019, McIntyre said:
“So I woke up to this: SHAME ON YOU CREATIVE CARE!!! SHAME ON YOU DR. PHIL! STOP TELLING PEOPLE THAT CREATIVE CARE IS A GREAT PLACE!!!”
Edmon set forth:
“Whether Dr. Phil is deserving of shame and placing shame on him are not factual assertions susceptible to proof or disproof….Further, plaintiffs admit that the accompanying photograph of a coroner’s van accurately showed the coroner responding after a patient overdosed on Fentanyl at the facility.”
The operative complaint alleges that McEntyre claimed that “[d]aily there are hundreds of clients, 30 vehicles, emergency activity weekly” at the facility. The presiding justice noted that proof was not presented that the defendant had made that statement, but that if McEntyre did post the statement and it is not so, “it does not rise to the level of defamation” because “[a]t most,” it “infers that Creative Care is not a good neighbor, which might be of concern to the neighborhood but does not reflect on the care the facility provides.”
License Suspension
McEntyre next posted this:
“‘PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT Yesterday Dr. Phil aired a[n] episode that endorsed Creative Care in Woodland Hills. Be advised the Department of Health Care Services suspended their licen[s]e last week so DO NOT listen to Dr. Phil. Dr. Phil was put on notice several months ago about this facility and their problems and again early this week about their suspension. This is willful ignorance. Shame on you Dr. Phil. Do NOT send your loved one to Creative Care.”
Creative Care’s license had, in fact, been suspended, Edmon pointed out. She recited the plaintiffs’ contention that they were entitled to a hearing on the allegations, and scoffed:
“Regardless of whether plaintiffs had a due process right to a hearing on the accusation, it is unclear how any such right is relevant to this separate, anti-SLAPP proceeding or implicated by the evidentiary ruling.”
The case is Creative Care v. McEntyre, B308643.
Thomas H. Citron and Katherine A. Tatikian of the West Los Angeles firm of Citron & Citron represented the plaintiffs. Inland Empire lawyers Allen Saltzman, Tom M. Allen, and Erica L. Saltzman were attorneys on appeal for McEntyre.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company