IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
JANE HYDE RASMUSSEN et al.,
S182407
Petitioners,
Ct.App. 4/3
G042454
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE
Orange County
COUNTY,
JCCP No. 4392
Respondent;
PRAVEEN BUNYAN et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
This matter, involving a church property dispute, is before this court for the
second time. (See Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467.) St. James
Parish in Newport Beach (St. James Parish) was a parish within the Episcopal
Diocese of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Diocese), a diocese within the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States of America (Episcopal Church). The parish
has disaffiliated from the diocese and the national church and joined another
church. The national church and St. James Parish both claim ownership of the
church building that St. James Parish used and the property on which the building
stands.
The Los Angeles Diocese and certain individuals (hereafter Los Angeles
Diocese) sued persons connected with St. James Parish (hereafter St. James
1
Parish) claiming the national church owns the property. Later, the Episcopal
Church intervened on the side of the Los Angeles Diocese and filed a complaint in
intervention against St. James Parish, also claiming the national church owns the
property. St. James Parish moved to strike the Los Angeles Diocese’s lawsuit as a
“strategic lawsuit against public participation,” generally known as a “SLAPP
suit.” (See Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 473, fn. 1; Code Civ.
Proc., § 425.16.) The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action
without leave to amend. It later sustained without leave to amend St. James
Parish’s demurrer to the Episcopal Church’s complaint in intervention and
dismissed that action. The Los Angeles Diocese and Episcopal Church appealed.
The Court of Appeal consolidated the appeals and reversed both judgments of
dismissal. It ruled that the action was not a SLAPP suit, and that the trial court
erred in sustaining the demurrer. Its disposition stated, “Further proceedings shall
be consistent with this opinion.” We granted review to decide whether the action
was a SLAPP suit and to address the merits of the property dispute.
We affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, although our reasoning
differed in some respects from the Court of Appeal’s. (Episcopal Church Cases,
supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 493.) We stated the method courts should use in resolving
church property disputes. (Id. at pp. 478-485.) Applying that approach, we also
concluded, “on this record, that the general church, not the local church, owns the
property in question.” (Id. at p. 473; see also id. at pp. 485-493.)
On remand in the trial court, St. James Parish answered the complaint and
complaint in intervention, and filed a cross-complaint against the Los Angeles
Diocese. St. James Parish continues to contend it owns the property. It relies
largely on a 1991 letter that, it claims, places ownership with the parish. The Los
Angeles Diocese and Episcopal Church moved for judgment on the pleadings and
demurred to the cross-complaint. The court denied the motion for judgment on the
2
pleadings and overruled the demurrer. Thereafter, the Los Angeles Diocese and
the Episcopal Church filed an original petition for writ of mandate in the Court of
Appeal asking that court to order the trial court to vacate its previous rulings and
to enter new orders sustaining the demurrer and granting the motion for judgment
on the pleadings.
After issuing an order to show cause, the Court of Appeal granted the writ.
The majority viewed our opinion in Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th
467, as having resolved the property dispute for all purposes, leaving nothing for
the trial court to do on remand but to dispose of the cases in favor of the Los
Angeles Diocese and Episcopal Church. Justice Fybel dissented. He argued that
this court merely affirmed the previous judgment of the Court of Appeal, which
had reversed the trial court’s granting of the motion to dismiss and the sustaining
of the demurrer, and ordered further proceedings consistent with its opinion. This
court did not, he argued, additionally order judgment to be entered in favor of the
Los Angeles Diocese and Episcopal Church.
We granted St. James Parish’s petition for review, and we now conclude
that the majority in the Court of Appeal erred. It is true that we “address[ed]” the
merits of the property dispute because the parties had briefed the question, and it
presented an important question of law. (Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45
Cal.4th at p. 478.) Based on the arguments the parties presented, we did conclude
“on this record,” that the general church owns the disputed property. (Id. at p.
473.) But what we said must be viewed in light of the case’s procedural posture.
The matter was before us on a summary adjudication in favor of St. James
Parish. Specifically, the trial court had (1) granted a motion to dismiss the action
as a SLAPP suit under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, and (2) sustained
the demurrer. The former ruling meant the trial court had found that the action
was a SLAPP suit, i.e., that the action arose out of protected activity, and that the
3
Los Angeles Diocese had not shown a probability it would prevail. (Episcopal
Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 477.) The latter ruling meant the trial court
had found the Episcopal Church had not stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); see 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th
ed. 2008) Pleading, §§ 951, 952, pp. 366-368.) We affirmed the judgment of the
Court of Appeal, which had reversed these rulings.
But concluding, as the Court of Appeal and this court had done, that the
action is not subject to dismissal as a SLAPP suit and that the demurrer should
have been overruled, does not mean the actions were finally decided in favor of
the Los Angeles Diocese and the Episcopal Church. St. James Parish had not even
filed an answer at that stage. Although the 1991 letter was in the appellate record
before us in Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th 467, St. James Parish did
not rely on it in this court, no doubt due to the procedural posture of the case. The
briefs in this court did not discuss it, and we did not consider it. Our opinion did
not order judgment entered against the defendants before they had even answered
the complaint and cross-complaint. We merely affirmed the previous judgment of
the Court of Appeal, which had remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Further proceedings are still necessary to finally decide the dispute. We express
no opinion regarding the legal significance, if any, of the 1991 letter. We merely
hold that a court must decide the question.
4
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the matter to
that court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
CHIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J.
BAXTER, J.
WERDEGAR, J.
CORRIGAN, J.
WILLHITE, J.*
_____________________________
* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division
Four, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
5
DISSENTING OPINION BY KENNARD, J.
This case, first before this court in 2009, concerns a dispute between a local
parish and a national church organization over ownership of certain property.
Today, this case is again before this court.
In the earlier decision, captioned Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45
Cal.4th 467, this court reviewed the Court of Appeal’s decision holding that when
a secular court is asked to resolve an intrachurch property dispute, the “principle
of government” standard must be applied, as this is the test that California has
adopted for that purpose. Under that test, the courts must, as to disputes involving
a hierarchical church, accept decisions made by the highest level of the church
hierarchy. Under an alternative test, the “neutral principle of law” approach,
secular courts decide church property disputes by applying general, that is, neutral,
concepts of trust and property law to the issue at hand.
In the earlier decision, the majority adopted the “neutral principles of law”
approach. (Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th 467.) In a concurring and
dissenting opinion, I agreed with the Court of Appeal that, as reflected in
Corporations Code section 9142, California had adopted the “principle of
government” approach for resolving intrachurch disputes about ownership of
church property.
On remand to the trial court, the national church organization
unsuccessfully moved for judgment on the pleadings. The church then petitioned
1
the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, which the appellate court granted,
directing the trial court to enter a new order granting the church’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings, thus resolving the property dispute in favor of the
national church organization. In the Court of Appeal’s view, certain language in
the majority’s earlier decision in Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th 467,
conclusively determined that the national church organization owns the property in
dispute. After granting the local parish’s petition for review, the case is once
again before us, this time captioned Rasmussen v. Superior Court.
In this second round, I adhere to the view expressed in my concurring and
dissenting opinion in the earlier decision. Applying the “principle of government”
approach here, I conclude that the Court of Appeal acted correctly when it granted
the national church organization’s petition for a writ of mandate and directed the
trial court to grant the church’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Therefore,
unlike the majority, which reverses the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the matter
now before us, I would affirm that court’s judgment.
KENNARD, J.
2
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. Name of Opinion Rasmussen v. Superior Court
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
XXX NP opn. filed 3/20/10 – 4th Dist., Div. 3Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No.
S182407Date Filed: May 5, 2011
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court:
SuperiorCounty: Orange
Judge: Thierry Patrick Colaw
__________________________________________________________________________________
Counsel:
Holme Roberts & Owen, John R. Shiner; Horvitz & Levy and Jeremy B. Rosen for Petitioners Jane HydeRasmussen, The Right Rev. Robert M. Anderson, The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los
Angeles and The Right Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.
Goodwin/Proctor, David Booth Beers and Jeffrey David Skinner for Petitioner The Episcopal Church.
Haley & Bilheimer and Allan S. Haley for American Anglican Council as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Petitioners Jane Hyde Rasmussen, The Right Rev. Robert M. Anderson, The Protestant Episcopal Church
in the Diocese of Los Angeles and The Right Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Diocese
of Los Angeles.
No appearance for Respondent.
Payne & Fears, Eric C. Sohlgren, Daniel F. Lula, Erik M. Andersen; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and
Robert A. Olson for Real Parties in Interest The Rev. Praveen Bunyan, The Rev. Richard A. Menees, The
Rev. M. Kathleen Adams, The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. James Parish in Newport Beach,
California, James Dale, Barbara Hettinga, Paul Stanley, Cal Trent, John McLaughlin, Penny Reveley, Mike
Thompson, Jill Austin, Eric Evans, Frank Daniels, Cobb Grantham and Julia Houten.
Barker Olmsted & Barnier and Charles W. Olmsted for Law Professors as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real
Parties in Interest The Rev. Praveen Bunyan, The Rev. Richard A. Menees, The Rev. M. Kathleen Adams,
The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. James Parish in Newport Beach, California, James Dale,
Barbara Hettinga, Paul Stanley, Cal Trent, John McLaughlin, Penny Reveley, Mike Thompson, Jill Austin,
Eric Evans, Frank Daniels, Cobb Grantham and Julia Houten.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
John R. ShinerHolme Roberts & Owen
800 West Olympic Boulevard, Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1367
(213) 572-4300
Eric C. Sohlgren
Payne & Fears
4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 851-1100
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. The court limited review to the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal properly direct the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the national Episcopal Church under Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467?
| Date: | Citation: | Docket Number: | Category: | Status: |
| Thu, 05/05/2011 | 51 Cal. 4th 804, 250 P.3d 191, 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 589 | S182407 | Review - Civil Original Proceeding | submitted/opinion due |
| 1 | Rasmussen, Jane Hyde (Petitioner) Represented by Jeremy Brooks Rosen Horvitz & Levy, LLP 15760 Ventura Boulevard, 18th Floor Encino, CA |
| 2 | Rasmussen, Jane Hyde (Petitioner) Represented by John Raymond Shiner Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP 888 W. Olympic Boulevard, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA |
| 3 | Episcopal Church (Petitioner) Represented by David Booth Beers Goodwin Procter, LLP 901 New York Avenue N.W. Washington, DC |
| 4 | Episcopal Church (Petitioner) Represented by Jeremy Brooks Rosen Horvitz & Levy, LLP 15760 Ventura Boulevard, 18th Floor Encino, CA |
| 5 | Superior Court of Orange County (Respondent) Represented by Thierry P. Colaw Superior Court of Orange County P.O. Box 1994 Santa Ana, CA |
| 6 | Bunyan, Praveen (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Erik Michael Andersen Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 7 | Bunyan, Praveen (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Daniel Friedman Lula Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 8 | Bunyan, Praveen (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Robert A. Olson Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, LLP 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA |
| 9 | Bunyan, Praveen (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Floyd J. Siegal Spile & Siegal, LLP 16501 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 610 Encino, CA |
| 10 | Bunyan, Praveen (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 11 | Adams, M. Kathleen (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 12 | All Saints Parish in Long Beach, California (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 13 | Austin, Jill (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 14 | Charves, Dianne (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 15 | Chase, Deborah (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 16 | Cobern, William (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 17 | Croshaw, Paul (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 18 | Dale, James (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 19 | Daniels, Frank (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 20 | Davidson, Bill (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 21 | Esparza, Primi (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 22 | Evans, Eric (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 23 | Evans, Erica (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 24 | Forrester, Vondi (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 25 | Grantham, Cobb (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 26 | Houten, Julia (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 27 | Hall, Jon (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 28 | Hauck, Gail (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 29 | Hettinga, Barbara (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 30 | Iovine, Jenna (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 31 | Jordan, Peter (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 32 | Kamikubo, Dan (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 33 | Lang, Jeff (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 34 | Leney, Laurie (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 35 | Leroy, Wendy (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 36 | McAllister, Megan (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 37 | McLaughlin, John (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 38 | Menees, Richard A. (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 39 | Palmer, Alwyne (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 40 | Palmer, Janet (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 41 | Poch, Jose (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Kent M. Bridwell Attorney at Law 3646 Clarington Avenue, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA |
| 42 | Poch, Jose (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer Attorney at Law 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 43 | Reveley, Penny (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 44 | Smith, Jo (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 45 | St. David's Parish in North Hollwood, Califonia (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 46 | St. James Parish in Newport Beach, California (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 47 | Stanley, Paul (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 48 | Thompson, Mike (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 49 | Thomspon, William A. (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 50 | Thornburg, David (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 51 | Trent, Cal (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Eric Carl Sohlgren Payne & Fears, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA |
| 52 | Usiade, Benson (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 53 | White, K. (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 54 | Willien, Sara (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 55 | Woodrum, Chris (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 56 | Woods, Fred (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Lynn E. Moyer 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 200 Oceangate, Suite 830 Long Beach, CA |
| 57 | American Anglican Council (Amicus curiae) Represented by Allan S. Haley Haley & Bilheimer 505 Coyote Street, Suite A Nevada City, CA |
| 58 | Goodno, Naomi Harlin (Amicus curiae) Pepperdine University School of Law 24255 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90263 Represented by Christopher W. Olmsted Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC 3550 Camino del Rio North, Suite 303 San Diego, CA |
| 59 | Grady, Mark F. (Amicus curiae) UCLA School of Law Charles E. Young Drive East 1242 (off 3439) Los Angeles, CA 90095 Represented by Christopher W. Olmsted Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC 3550 Camino del Rio North, Suite 303 San Diego, CA |
| 60 | Llewellyn, David Lewis (Amicus curiae) Llewellyn & Spann 5530 Birdcage Street, Suite 210 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 Represented by Christopher W. Olmsted Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC 3550 Camino del Rio North, Suite 303 San Diego, CA |
| Opinion Authors | |
| Opinion | Justice Ming W. Chin |
| Dissent | Justice Joyce L. Kennard |
| Dockets | |
| May 4 2010 | Petition for review filed Real Party in Interest: Bunyan, Praveen Real Party in Interest: Menees, Richard A. Real Party in Interest: Adams, M. Kathleen Real Party in Interest: St. James Parish in Newport Beach, California Real Party in Interest: Dale, James Real Party in Interest: Hettinga, Barbara Real Party in Interest: Stanley, Paul Real Party in Interest: Trent, Cal Real Party in Interest: McLaughlin, John Real Party in Interest: Reveley, Penny Real Party in Interest: Thompson, Mike Real Party in Interest: Austin, Jill Real Party in Interest: Evans, Eric Real Party in Interest: Evans, Erica Real Party in Interest: Grantham, Cobb Real Party in Interest: Houten, JuliaAttorney: Eric Carl Sohlgren |
| May 5 2010 | Record requested |
| May 10 2010 | Received Court of Appeal record one file jacket/writ |
| May 18 2010 | Received additional record One box (6 Vols. of exhibits in support of the petition and 6 vols. in support of the return). |
| May 25 2010 | Answer to petition for review filed Petitioner: Episcopal ChurchAttorney: Jeremy Brooks Rosen per CRC 8.25b |
| Jun 4 2010 | Reply to answer to petition filed Real Party in Interest: Bunyan, PraveenAttorney: Eric Carl Sohlgren |
| Jun 9 2010 | Petition for review granted; issues limited The petition for review is granted. The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Did the Court of Appeal properly direct the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the national Episcopal Church under Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467? Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ. |
| Jun 10 2010 | Letter sent to: both parties, grant letter with certificate of interested entities. |
| Jun 10 2010 | Record sent to Calendar Coordination Office Petition for writ of mandate, Return of Real Party in Interest, Supplemental exhibits, amended proof of service, Return in support of petition, Exhibits-12 (six volumes of two each), 7, 8, 9, Misc papers, orders, etc. |
| Jun 17 2010 | Certification of interested entities or persons filed via fax, delivered via messenger to Supreme Court Praveen Bunyan, et al., Real Parties in Interest by Eric C. Sohlgren, counsel |
| Jun 18 2010 | Request for extension of time filed forty-five (45) days, to and including August 24, 2010, to serve and file the opening brief on the merits. Praveen Bunyan, et al., Real Parties in Interest by Daniel F. Lula, counsel |
| Jun 23 2010 | Extension of time granted On application of Real Parties in Interest and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including August 9, 2010. No further extension of time is contemplated. |
| Jun 24 2010 | Certification of interested entities or persons filed Petitioner, Jane Hyde Rasmussen by Jeremy B. Rosen of Horvitz & Levy. |
| Aug 9 2010 | Opening brief on the merits filed Real Party in Interest: Bunyan, PraveenAttorney: Daniel Friedman Lula Attorney: Eric Carl Sohlgren Attorney: Erik Michael Andersen Attorney: Robert A. Olson |
| Aug 25 2010 | Request for extension of time filed thirty (30) days, to and including October 8, 2010, to serve and file the answer brief on the merits The Episcopal Church, et al., petitioners Jeremy B. Rosen, counsel |
| Aug 27 2010 | Extension of time granted On application of petitioners and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file petitioner's answer brief on the merits is extended to and including October 8, 2010. No further extensions of time are contemplated. |
| Oct 8 2010 | Answer brief on the merits filed Petitioner: Rasmussen, Jane HydeAttorney: Jeremy Brooks Rosen Petitioner: Episcopal ChurchAttorney: Jeremy Brooks Rosen |
| Oct 15 2010 | Request for extension of time filed twenty-two (22) days, to and including November 19, 2010, to serve and file the reply brief on the merits. Rev. Praveen Bunyan, et al, Real Parties in Interest Daniel F. Lula, counsel |
| Oct 15 2010 | Extension of time granted On application of defendants and real parties in interest, and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits is extended to and including November 19, 2010. No further extension of time will be contemplated. |
| Nov 22 2010 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) Real Party in Interest: Bunyan, PraveenAttorney: Daniel Friedman Lula et al. CRC 8.25(b) |
| Dec 16 2010 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed American Anglican Council by attorney Allan S. Haley in support of petitioners. |
| Dec 21 2010 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of American Anglican Council for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief. |
| Dec 21 2010 | Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: American Anglican CouncilAttorney: Allan S. Haley |
| Dec 23 2010 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed Application of Law Professors in support of real party in interest, Praveen Bunyan. CRC 8.25(b) |
| Dec 29 2010 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Law Professors for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of real party in interest is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief. |
| Dec 29 2010 | Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Goodno, Naomi HarlinAttorney: Christopher W. Olmsted |
| Jan 3 2011 | Request for extension of time filed Petitioners, J. Rasmussen and Episcopal Church, are asking to January 31, 2011 to file one consolidated answer to amicus curiae briefs. by counsel, Jeremy B. Rosen |
| Jan 12 2011 | Extension of time granted On application of Petitioners Jane Hyde Rasmussen, et al., and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the consolidated answer to amicus curiae briefs is extended to and including January 31, 2011. |
| Feb 1 2011 | Response to amicus curiae brief filed Petitioner: Rasmussen, Jane HydeAttorney: Jeremy Brooks Rosen Attorney: John Raymond Shiner Petitioner: Episcopal ChurchAttorney: Jeremy Brooks Rosen CRC 8.25(b) |
| Feb 8 2011 | Case ordered on calendar to be argued Tuesday, March 8, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco |
| Feb 8 2011 | Justice pro tempore assigned Hon. Thomas Lyle Willhite, Jr. Second Appellate District, Division Four |
| Feb 22 2011 | Filed: Correspondence from Kent M. Bridwell, counsel for real parties in interest All Saints Parish and St. David's Parish. |
| Mar 8 2011 | Cause argued and submitted |
| Mar 10 2011 | Order filed The above entitled matter is retitled as follows: JANE HYDE RASMUSSEN et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; PRAVEEN BUNYAN et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
| May 4 2011 | Notice of forthcoming opinion posted To be filed on Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 10 a.m. |
| Brief Downloads | |
 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| Jul 4, 2011 Annotated by whitney fogg | FACTS This case concerns a dispute over church property that arose after St. James Parish of Newport Beach disaffiliated from the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (Episcopal Church). The disaffiliation followed the Episcopal Church’s appointment of an openly gay bishop in 2003. After the St. James congregation withdrew, it continued to claim ownership of the Parish’s church building and the underlying property. The Los Angeles Diocese and the Episcopal Church sued to recover the property. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Los Angeles Diocese and certain individuals brought several property recovery claims against St. James Parish. The Episcopal Church subsequently intervened on the side of the Diocese and filed its own complaint. The Parish demurred to the Episcopal Church’s complaint and, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, also moved to strike the suit as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (SLAPP). The Parish argued that SLAPP applied because the cause of action arose from a protected activity, namely, the exercise of the congregation’s free speech rights. The trial court granted the defendant’s motions and dismissed both complaints. After consolidating the plaintiffs’ appeals, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the lawsuit (1) was not subject to SLAPP and (2) that the plaintiffs had stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case. On remand, St. James Parish continued to claim ownership of the property. The Parish filed an answer to the plaintiffs’ complaints, as well as a cross-complaint against the Los Angeles Diocese. In response, the Diocese and Episcopal Church moved for judgment on the pleadings and demurred to the cross-complaint. The trial court denied both motions. The Diocese and Episcopal Church then filed a petition for writ of mandate, asking the Court of Appeal to vacate the trial court’s decision, sustain the demurrer, and grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court of Appeal granted the writ and St. James Parish petitioned the Supreme Court for review. ISSUE Did the Court of Appeal err in entering judgment for the national church organization, thereby granting it ownership of the St. James Parish church and associated property? HOLDING In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that, in light of the procedural posture of the case, the Court of Appeal should not have resolved the property dispute in favor of the national Episcopal organization. The question of ownership is to be determined in further proceedings. ANALYSIS The Supreme Court’s previous decision in Episcopal Church Cases did reach the merits of the property dispute, concluding that, on the record before it, the Episcopal Church was the rightful owner.* However, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s analysis, that decision did not require the entry of judgment in favor of the national church organization. Based on its procedural posture—summary judgment for St. James Parish—the correct reading of Episcopal Church Cases is that the Supreme Court merely agreed with the Court of Appeal that (1) the property recovery suit was not subject to a SLAPP motion to strike and (2) the local parish’s demurrer should have been overruled. It would have been premature for the Supreme Court in Episcopal Church Cases to order judgment entered against St. James Parish before the Parish had even answered the complaints. The Parish also did not make use of the full record at the time, including a 1991 letter it now relies on to bolster its ownership claim, “no doubt due to the procedural posture of the case.” It was therefore premature for the Court of Appeal to order judgment for the Los Angeles Diocese and Episcopal Church. *In so holding, the Supreme Court adopted the so-called “neutral principle of law” approach to guide secular courts in deciding internal church disputes over property ownership. See Episcopal Church Cases 45 Cal.4th at 485 (“[T]o the extent that the court can resolve a property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should apply neutral principles of law.”). DISSENT Judge Kennard dissented, arguing that the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that certain language in Episcopal Church Cases conclusively determined that the national church organization, and not the local parish, owned the disputed property. TAGS canon, church, church property, Episcopal Church, neutral principle of law, principal of government, SLAPP, summary judgment, strategic lawsuit against public participation Key Related Cases Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979) Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871) Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467 Presbytery of Riverside v. Community Church of Palm Springs (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 910 Key Related Statutes and Regulations Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e) Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Canon I.7.4 |
| May 25, 2011 Annotated by matthew prosen | -FACTS- This matter involves a property dispute brought against the St. James Parish in Newport Beach (“the Parish”) by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles (“the Diocese”) and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (“the Episcopal Church”). This case is before the California Supreme Court for a second time. See Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467. The issue began when the Parish disassociated itself from the Diocese and the Episcopal Church and joined another church. Both the Parish and the Episcopal Church claim ownership of the church building and the land on which the Parish operates. The case made its way up to the California Supreme Court once already, and the Court decided, among other things, that the property belongs to the Episcopal Church. On remand, the Parish continued to contend that it owns the property, relying primarily on a 1991 letter that, it claims, proves Parish ownership. The trial court refused to issue a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church. An appellate battle ensued over a writ of mandate that would force the trial court to rule in favor of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church. -PROCEDURAL HISTORY- The Diocese sued the Parish, claiming that the Episcopal Church owns the property. The Episcopal Church intervened, filing a complaint in intervention against the Parish claiming that the Episcopal Church owns the property. The Parish moved to strike the Diocese’s lawsuit “as a ‘strategic lawsuit against public participation,’ generally known as a ‘SLAPP suit.’ See Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th at 473, fn. 1; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action without leave to amend.” It then sustained the Parish’s demurrer to the Episcopal Church’s complaint in intervention, without leave to amend, and dismissed that action as well. “The Los Angeles Diocese and Episcopal Church appealed. The Court of Appeal consolidated the appeals and reversed both judgments of dismissal. It ruled that the action was not a SLAPP suit, and that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer.” The Parish appealed. The California Supreme Court granted review “to decide whether the action was a SLAPP suit and to address the merits of the property dispute.” After deciding the method by which courts should resolve church property disputes, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling. It held that the Episcopal Church owns the property and remanded the case to the trial court. On remand, the Parish “answered the complaint and complaint in intervention, and filed a cross-complaint against the Diocese.” The Parish continues to claim that it owns the property, citing a 1991 letter. The Diocese and the Episcopal Church “moved for judgment on the pleadings and demurred to the cross-complaint.” The trial court denied the motion and overruled the demurrer. In response, the Diocese and the Episcopal Church filed an original petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, asking the Court to 1) vacate the trial court’s rulings and 2) order the trial court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings and sustain the demurrer. A split Court of Appeal granted the writ of mandate. The majority viewed the prior California Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Episcopal Church as fully dispositive on the property issue. The minority argued that the Supreme Court did not order the trial court to enter judgment for the Episcopal Church, but, rather, reversed the initial dismissal and ordered further proceedings to be conducted consistent with its opinion. The Parish appealed to the California Supreme Court for a second time, contesting the order granting the writ of mandate. -ISSUES- Did the Court of Appeal properly direct the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the national Episcopal Church under Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467? -HOLDING- In its first opinion, the California Supreme Court did not order that judgment be entered in favor of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church, but rather ordered that the case be remanded for further proceedings. Thus, the Court of Appeal erred in granting the writ of mandate, which directed the entry of judgment in favor of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church. -ANALYSIS- While the California Supreme Court did indeed “address” the substantive issue of which party owns the disputed property, its conclusion was based on the incomplete record of the time. True, the parties briefed the Court on the property ownership issue, but the Court’s decision must be seen in light of the case’s procedural posture. The Court ruled that the trial court’s dismissal as a SLAPP suit and the demurrer were improper. Thus, the Court did not finally decide in favor of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church, but rather found dismissal inappropriate. Indeed, the Parish had not even filed an answer by that time. Additionally, even though the 1991 letter was in the appellate record when the case was before the California Supreme Court, the Parish did not rely on it, the briefs did not discuss it, and the Court did not consider it. In light of the procedural posture of the case and the Supreme Court’s lack of consideration of key facts, the Court’s previous opinion “did not order judgment entered against the defendants,” but rather remanded the case for further proceedings, which are still necessary. Therefore, granting the writ of mandate was improper. -DISSENT- The dissent feels that the Court’s reasoning is correct, but that it applied the wrong test, in the first instance, to determine church property disputes. Under the dissent’s preferred “principle of government” test, judgment should have been unequivocally entered for the Episcopal Church. Thus, the Court of Appeal appropriately granted the writ of mandate. The majority used the “neutral principles of law” test, which neutrally applies concepts of trust and property law. -TAGS- Writ of mandate; writ of mandamus; Episcopal Church; Los Angeles Diocese; St. James Parish; SLAPP suit; church property dispute; Episcopal Church Cases; principle of government; neutral principles of law |
