County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Community Hospital

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Dr. Eric Runte appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his defamation claims in favor of defendant Dr. Donovan Teel. We affirm.

Whether a statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory interpretation is a question of law. See Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637 , 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 397, 403 (Ct.App.1999) (“Only once the court has determined that a statement is reasonably susceptible to such a defamatory interpretation does it become a question for the trier of fact whether or not it was so understood.”). Because California law does not impose liability for opinion, a charge of defamation must rest on a false factual assertion. See Campanelli v. Regents, 44 Cal.App.4th 572 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 891, 894-95 (Ct.App.1996).

We conclude as a matter of law that the various statements that Dr. Runte alleges are defamatory are merely opinions; thus, they are not susceptible to defamatory interpretation. 2 People’s feelings, beliefs, and concerns about Dr. Runte’s competence are non-actionable opinion. See id. at 895 (holding that statements phrased as feeling are protected opinion). As a matter of law, there is no “reasonable…