Dougherty

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a “common law right of fair procedure” case. (E.g., Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists (1974) 12 Cal.3d 541 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 245 , 526 P.2d 253 ] (Pinsker II); James v. Marinship Corp. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 721 [ 155 P.2d 329 ] (Marinship); Yari v. Producers Guild of America, Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 172 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 803 ] (Yari); Oskooi v. Fountain Valley Regional Hospital (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 233 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 769 ] (Oskooi).)

The right of fair procedure derives, as our high court pointed out in Pinsker II, from the common law, and should not be confused with constitutional “due process.” (Pinsker II, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 550, fn. 7 .) The right by no means applies to all private organizations, but rather only to those which, in the Yari court’s useful phrase, act as some sort of “gatekeepers” over the right to practice a lawful trade or profession. (See Yari, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 176 , citing Ezekial v. Winkley (1977) 20 Cal.3d 267, 272 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 418 , 572 P.2d 32 ] (Ezekial).)

Typical “gatekeeper” organizations are labor unions (e.g., Otto v. Tailors’ P. & B. Union (1888) 75 Cal. 308 [ 17 P. 217 ] (Otto)…