Betsuin v. Jodoshu North America Buddhist Missions, B192869 (Cal. App. 9/25/2007), B192869
| Decision Date | 25 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | B192869 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JODO SHU BETSUIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JODOSHU NORTH AMERICA BUDDHIST MISSIONS et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC305092. Jane L. Johnson, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Kitagawa & Ebert and James R. Ebert for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Kevin M. Fong, Jennie L. La Prade, and Daphne P. Bishop for Defendants and Respondents.
The parties to this appeal are organizations and an individual associated with Jodo Shu, a Buddhist sect. Plaintiff, Jodo Shu Betsuin, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants, Jodoshu North America Buddhist Missions (defendant) and Bishop Masahiko Asatani. Plaintiff is or was a Buddhist temple. Defendant is an umbrella organization that oversees Jodo Shu operations in North America. Bishop Asatani is an officer and bishop of defendant and a former member of plaintiff's board of trustees. Both plaintiff and defendant are California non-profit religious corporations. (Corp. Code, § 9110 et seq.) Plaintiff was expelled from the Jodo Shu organization. The expulsion resulted from a dispute involving the religious leadership of plaintiff's temple. Defendant barred plaintiff from use of temple property. Plaintiff sought to recover as damages its financial and personal property investments in the construction and operation of the temple building. The trial court found the dispute between plaintiff and defendants is a religious disagreement over which the civil courts have no jurisdiction. The trial court entered a summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed. We reverse the summary judgment, but direct entry of an order granting summary adjudication of the first cause of action for wrongful eviction.
The following evidence was undisputed. Jodo Shu is a Buddhist sect. It is a hierarchical organization headed by religious and administrative authorities in Japan. The person holding the position of "`Jodo-monsu'" heads the Jodo Shu religion. The Jodo Shu Religious Corporation (JRC) manages and administers Jodo Shu temples worldwide. It has three branches: administrative; legislative (the Jodo Shu Parliament); and judicial (the Probationary Court). The secretary general is the highest ranking authority in the JRC and the chairperson of its board. Jodo Shu leaders in Japan oversee bishops throughout the world. The bishops in turn oversee the ministers and operations of local Jodo Shu churches. The JRC was named as a defendant in plaintiff's original complaint. However, plaintiff dismissed its action as to the JRC on November 20, 2003.
The secretary of the JRC's Department of Social and International Affairs oversees Jodo Shu temples in countries other than Japan. These are referred to as "`overseas districts.'" The Department of Social and International Affairs has jurisdiction over overseas districts or missions pursuant to title 3, chapter 1, section 17, paragraph 4 of the Compilation of Jodo Shu Rules and Regulations. The decision whether to terminate the relationship between the Jodo Shu religion and an overseas temple is made by the Department of Social and International Affairs and ultimately by the JRC's secretary general. Rule 6, section 1-2, paragraph 1 of the Jodo Shu Rules Regarding Temples and Churches requires all temples be registered in the Jodo Shu temple register. If the relationship between Jodo Shu and an overseas temple is severed: the temple is removed from the registry; it ceases to be a Jodo Shu temple; and the overseas temple is no longer affiliated with the Jodo Shu religious organization.
Plaintiff was incorporated on March 10, 1959. The articles of incorporation state in part: Initially, plaintiff occupied a temple on Jefferson Avenue in Los Angeles. In 1979, Jodo Shu leaders in Japan appointed Satoru Kawai as bishop of Jodoshu North America and Betsuin's head minister. Bishop Kawai determined it would be prudent to move the temple to a safer neighborhood.
In 1988, defendant was formed as an umbrella organization to oversee Jodo Shu operations in North America. Defendant was incorporated on April 20, 1988. Defendant's articles of incorporation state, "The specific purpose of this [nonprofit religious] corporation is to operate a church." Defendant's board of directors consists of: defendant's bishop; the JRC's six highest ranking administrative branch religious leaders, including the secretary of the Department of Social and International Affairs; and the JRC's secretary general. The JRC's secretary general also serves as chairperson of defendant's board.
Plaintiff became affiliated with the JRC and defendant on December 29, 1989 pursuant to a "`Memorandum Concerning Establishment of [Jodoshu] Missions.'" Plaintiff agreed therein, "`[F]or so long as the parties mutually agree, [plaintiff] shall be an organization associated with [defendant], in accordance with the rules of Jodoshu, and in accordance with Article IV, "Related Organizations,' of the By-Laws of [defendant].'" Plaintiff also agreed the JRC would appoint defendant's bishop, whose term of office would be three years.
In 2000, a dispute arose involving plaintiff, defendant, and the JRC after Reverend Shobo Ishihara and Reverend Kodo Tanaka were appointed to the temple by Jodo Shu leaders in Japan. Plaintiff's board of trustees demanded that the two priests be terminated or returned to Japan. On April 15, 2001, one or more of plaintiff's trustees allegedly accosted Reverend Tanaka. On May 3, 2001, Satoru Kawai—defendant's bishop and plaintiff's head minister—retired or resigned from his positions effective July 31, 2001. Bishop Asatani was appointed by the JRC to replace Bishop Kawai. Subsequently, Harumitsu Ishi, one of plaintiff's trustees, filed a defamation action against Reverends Ishiara and Tanaka. The lawsuit alleged Mr. Ishi was wrongfully accused of accosting Reverend Tanaka. The lawsuit was settled in October 2002. Following the settlement, plaintiff's board of trustees continued to insist that Reverends Ishihara and Tanaka return to Japan. Plaintiff's board of directors demanded that the two ministers not be allowed to lead or participate in services. Further, the board refused to recognize Bishop Asatani as defendant's authorized representative.
On May 9, 2003, defendant's board of directors held a meeting to discuss plaintiff's demands. The board authorized Bishop Asatani to terminate plaintiff's affiliation with Jodo Shu if the dispute could not be amicably resolved. Plaintiff's demands continued and escalated. On July 9, 2003, plaintiff's trustees sent a letter to Bishop Asatani. The letter ordered Bishop Asatani not to use Reverend Ishihara or Reverend Tanaka in religious services conducted at the temple. On July 21, 2003, plaintiff's trustees sent a letter to defendant's board of directors. The July 21, 2003 letter stated that plaintiff's board refused to recognize Bishop Asatani as bishop. By letter dated August 2, 2003, Bishop Asatani warned plaintiff's board of trustees the affiliation with defendant was in jeopardy. The August 2, 2003 letter stated the relationship would be terminated unless plaintiff participated in reestablishing an amicable relationship with defendant. On August 25, 2003, plaintiff's board of trustees again demanded in writing that the two ministers be reassigned someplace outside the United States. The board further demanded that Bishop Kawai replace Bishop Asatani, and defendant, JRC, and plaintiff enter into a written agreement concerning the rights to use the temple. On September 9, 2003, Archbishop Mizutani—JRC's secretary general and defendant's board chairperson—sent a letter to plaintiff's board of trustees. The letter confirmed Bishop Asatani's authority to act on defendant's behalf and rejected plaintiff's demands. Archbishop Mizutani also reminded plaintiff's trustees, "`[T]o the extent [plaintiff] engages in religious functions at the Jodo Shu temple, it does so as part of the Jodo Shu sect of the Buddhist faith, not some separate and independent religious institution, and is bound to follow the rules of Jodo Shu and the instructions and directions of Jodoshu Missions.'"
Bishop Asatani was unable to resolve plaintiff's trustees' demands. As noted, defendant was the Jodo Shu umbrella organization. Defendant's board of directors had the authority to terminate the relationship with plaintiff. Defendant's board of directors included the secretary of the JRC Department of Social and International Affairs and the secretary general. On September 26, 2003, defendant informed plaintiff the affiliation was terminated. Defendant acted under Article 6 of the Memorandum Concerning Establishment of Jodoshu North America...
To continue reading
Request your trial