Murray v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

1

JANEE D. MURRAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.

C093385

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

May 3, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Super. Ct. No. 34-2019-00254461-CU-BC-GDS)

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

Plaintiff Janee D. Murray was in her second year of medical school at the University of California Davis School of Medicine (the School) when an instructor accused her of plagiarism. Though ultimately cleared of the charge after the School conducted an investigation, the time and energy Murray spent responding to the allegation made it more difficult to continue her studies. Murray sued the Regents of the University of California (defendant), bringing causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied-in-fact contract.

Defendant filed a motion to strike Murray's operative complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure^[1] section 425.16, widely known as the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that all of Murray's claims arose out of activity the anti-SLAPP law protects statements made in connection with issues being reviewed in an "official proceeding"-here, investigations and hearings the School conducted largely in response to the plagiarism concern. Murray opposed the motion arguing, inter alia, that defendant failed to meet its burden under the first step of the anti-SLAPP law to show her claims arose from anyone's protected speech. The trial court granted the motion.

On appeal, Murray repeats arguments she made in the trial court. Heeding our Supreme Court's directive in Bonni v. St Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 (Bonni) to pay particular attention to a defendant's burden of proof at the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis, we agree with Murray the trial court erred in granting the anti-SLAPP motion, because at least some of Murray's claims clearly do not arise from defendant's protected activity, defendant failed to address the claims individually, and the trial court did not analyze the claims individually.

Accordingly we reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to enter a new order denying the anti-SLAPP motion.

BACKGROUND^[2]

I Murray at Medical School

After receiving multiple admission offers, Murray, a Black woman, chose to attend the School because of its stated values and commitment to diversity as articulated in published materials, including the School's faculty code of conduct. Relevant here, the faculty code of conduct states it is unacceptable for a faculty member to discriminate against or harass a student due to race, sex, "or for other arbitrary or personal reasons." When she enrolled in the fall of 2015, Murray signed the School's code of academic conduct as a condition of enrollment.

In a February 2017 meeting during Murray's second year of medical school, one of her instructors of record (Instructor) for a required second-year course accused Murray of plagiarism. The Instructor's plagiarism accusation apparently was based on the opinion of a third-year medical student, a "facilitator" in the course, who told the Instructor that Murray was incapable of producing the level of work reflected in the relevant assignment. Also in that meeting, the Instructor claimed Murray admitted she plagiarized and accused Murray of having a negative attitude that affected the learning environment of the course.

Murray denied the accusations, but the Instructor referred the matter to the School's committee on student promotions (promotions committee) and professionalism consultation team (professionalism committee). The promotions committee oversees the academic performance of the School's medical students and is responsible for considering and approving "remediation" plans that permit a student to convert a non-passing grade into a passing grade. The professionalism committee advises and investigates professionalism concerns involving the School's faculty, staff, and students.

Before the promotions committee approved a remediation plan and without their participation, the Instructor required Murray to begin remediating her non-passing grade in the course. And pursuant to a school policy contemplating communication between second- and third-year faculty regarding incoming third-year students, the Instructor sent a memorandum expressing "significant concerns" with Murray to various instructors and officials at the School, explaining that Murray (1) had been referred to the professionalism committee "due to concern about frustration and negative statements" Murray made in the Instructor's course and (2) struggled to find "culturally responsive" mentors at the School.

Meanwhile, between February and April 2017, Murray had at least four meetings with the promotions committee and several meetings with the professionalism committee. Murray eventually completed a remediation plan approved by the promotions committee, receiving a passing grade in her course with the Instructor. And, in an April 2017 written report, the professionalism committee concluded Murray's challenged work product resulted from acceptable collaboration with a colleague, not plagiarism. The report recommended the School "make a concerted effort to reach out to minority students" at the School and acknowledge the "unique challenges" those students may face.

But the time Murray spent complying with the Instructor's remediation plan and meeting with the School's committees interfered with her ability to study for and pass a national exam that was a prerequisite for clinical rotations in the third year of medical school. This is despite the School's official policy, apparently shared by nearly all medical schools in the country, of setting aside a "protected" time of four to eight weeks during the spring semester of a student's second year to study for that exam.

Unable to re-enroll in the School until she passed the exam, Murray had no access to financial aid or other school resources for about two years.

II The Complaint and Defendant's Anti-SLAPP Motion

Murray sued defendant, bringing causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied-in-fact contract, alleging that defendant breached the contract (taken together, the code of academic conduct that Murray signed, and the faculty code of conduct that the Instructor presumably signed) by "fail[ing] to take necessary actions to stop [the Instructor's] prohibited harassment of" her in violation of the faculty code of conduct. Specifically, defendant was aware of the Instructor's "campaign of punishment" against Murray in spring 2017, which included "attempting to falsely claim" Murray admitted to plagiarizing her work and making Murray remediate her course with the Instructor before the promotions committee hearing began, during what should have been Murray's protected study time for the national exam.

Murray further alleged she was damaged by the Instructor's efforts to "sully" her professional career and reputation by sending a memorandum to officials at the School expressing concerns about her and by the Instructor forcing her to defend herself against "baseless accusations." The Instructor caused Murray to fail the national exam "by making it impossible for [Murray] to use the protected study time she had a right to." The "likely reason" for the Instructor's harassing behavior, Murray asserted, was prejudice toward women of color.

Murray largely reiterated and incorporated by reference the foregoing allegations in her cause of action for breach of implied-in-fact contract, while alleging the School's pamphlets, website, student and faculty handbooks, "and other publications" were part of the implied-in-fact contract between her and defendant.

In March 2020, defendant demurred and filed an anti-SLAPP motion seeking to strike all of Murray's claims in the operative complaint, arguing they arose out of the School's protected activity: official proceedings associated with the School's right to evaluate and improve medical student performance, an important public interest. Defendant asserted "all of [Murray's] allegations relate[d] to the complaints and investigations into . . . plagiarism" by Murray, investigations that "qualify as 'official proceedings authorized by law'" under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2). Therefore, defendant maintained, "[Murray's] allegations arise out of protected activity under the statute." In its anti-SLAPP motion, defendant did not address Murray's allegations individually, and further argued that Murray could not establish her claims had sufficient merit under the second step of the anti-SLAPP process.

In her opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, Murray contended defendant failed to meet its first-step burden under the statute to show her claims arose from protected activity. She argued that a claim may be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of. Murray further argued that under the second step of the anti-SLAPP process, her claims had sufficient merit.

In November 2020, the trial court granted the motion, ruling defendant met its burden on the first step "to show that the conduct complained of arises out of an official proceeding" of the School. In analyzing that issue, the trial court explained it considered "the principal thrust or gravamen of" Murray's claims. On the second step, the trial court ruled Murray failed to present evidence to support a prima facie case of either claim, as Murray "ma[d]e no effort to connect any" of the evidence she submitted in her pleadings to her claims.

The trial court denied Murray leave to amend the operative complaint and did not rule on the demurrer, determining it was moot in light of the anti-SLAPP...