Hart v. Cult Awareness Network
Decision Date | 28 January 1993 |
Docket Number | No. B065422,B065422 |
Citation | 13 Cal.App.4th 777,16 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Philip A. HART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CULT AWARENESS NETWORK et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Bowles & Moxon, Randall A. Spencer, Hollywood, Turner, Gerstenfeld, Wilk, Tigerman, Heller & Young and Lawrence E. Heller, Beverly Hills, for plaintiff and appellant.
Hagenbaugh & Murphy, Peter M. Schnirch and Daniel A. Leipold, Orange County, for defendants and respondents.
The following facts are gleaned from evidence found to be admissible by the trial court, the evidentiary rulings of which are not challenged on appeal.
CAN-National is a nonprofit corporation; its purpose is to educate the public about the harmful effects of mind control as practiced by destructive cults and about the unethical or illegal practices they employ. CAN-National collects information and conducts research on numerous cults, which information is available for a fee covering copying and mailing costs; it also maintains a confidential hotline to give immediate help or information to persons involved with destructive cults, their family or friends, or anyone seeking more information on the cult issue.
Membership in CAN-National is open to individuals without regard to race, religion or national origin. Payment of an annual fee, currently $30, entitles members to receipt of the monthly CAN Newsletter and notice of yearly CAN meetings, to which all members will be admitted unless and until the determination is reasonably made that they are planning or engaging in activity disruptive to the meeting or detrimental to its purpose or the well-being of other members. Although plaintiff has never requested status as a member of CAN-National or tendered payment of the annual fee, were he to do so, he would be admitted to membership status in CAN-National and afforded the benefits of such membership--the monthly newsletter and notice of CAN-National yearly meetings.
The September 1991 issue of the Business Link, a publication of the Better Business Bureau serving Southern California, contained an article exposing Sterling Management Systems, a Glendale, California, consulting and training business, as "but one of many of the Scientology cult's front groups," and listed a dozen other organizations which also were alleged front groups for the Church of Scientology. The publication also offered some characteristics of cults as discouraging family life and normal childhood behavior, isolating children and requiring them The same issue also highlighted the work of CAN-National and stated that it maintains extensive information files on the Church of Scientology.
CAN-LA is an unincorporated association separate from, but authorized to exist by, CAN-National's requirements for affiliation. These requirements include the existence of five or more unrelated persons wishing to form an affiliate organization, agreement to hold at least four meetings per year, agreement to subscribe to the by-laws of CAN-National, payment of $100 annual affiliate dues; and submission of quarterly activity reports and yearly financial reports to CAN-National. With the exception of providing CAN brochures for CAN-LA to use in providing information to Priscilla Coates is the Chairwoman of CAN-LA; she receives no salary as Chairwoman; CAN-LA has no paid employees and owns no tangible assets of any kind; the only revenue generated by CAN-LA comes in the form of donations and the entire "work force" consists of volunteers who donate time and resources to the organization.
interested persons, CAN-National provides no financial support to CAN-LA.
Until October 1991, meetings of CAN-LA were held on a bi-monthly basis in a room provided free of charge by a local bank or in the home of Coates; currently, meetings are held on an irregular basis at the homes of members or friends of the organization. CAN-LA sells no products or services of any kind; as Director, Coates is called upon to provide information to interested persons, which she does free of charge, except for reimbursement of copying costs where applicable. Coates and other members of CAN-LA are sometimes called upon to speak at various events; they charge no fee for such service, but occasionally accept modest honoraria in the $50 range. CAN-LA has no involvement in lobbying either the state or federal legislatures for new laws concerning religious issues.
Beginning in July 1991, Coates began to receive a total of 486 letters from acknowledged Scientologists requesting to be admitted as members of CAN-LA, purportedly to engage in religious dialogue with other members; the letters were remarkably similar in composition. Coates believed the campaign of letters from Scientologists professing their desire to join CAN-LA was designed as a harassment measure against CAN and CAN-LA, as in February 1991, the Church of Scientology identified CAN as a suppressive group, which Church literature defines as "one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts." According to Church literature, a suppressive person or group becomes "fair game," and a person or group which is fair game A February 1991 Church of Scientology document relating to two individuals not parties to this action, stated that one of the individuals
On August 8, 1991, plaintiff sent a letter to CAN-LA informing it that he was a Scientologist and requesting membership in CAN-LA; Coates informed plaintiff that his letter had been forwarded to CAN for consideration; in October 1991, plaintiff spoke again to Coates, who told him that he would not be allowed to join CAN-LA because of his membership in the Church of Scientology.
According to plaintiff's declaration submitted in support of his application for preliminary injunction, "I wanted to and still want to join CAN-LA, for the purpose of engaging in a meaningful religious dialogue with the members of CAN-LA about the merits of underlying philosophies of their respective religions, including providing a Scientologist's perspective of Scientology.... I have become aware that, despite its stated purposes, CAN has engaged in an extensive campaign to destroy my religion and others. I am also aware that CAN is required by its own statement of purpose, and by its status as a tax-exempt educational organization, to hear and be informed on all sides of religious issues. Thus, I am seeking to exercise my right to join this organization and voice my side of the story of Scientology, to bring about an understanding which would urge this organization to understand and entertain a positive viewpoint toward Scientology, and to compel CAN to cease its attacks on my religion. It never was, nor is it my intention to disrupt or interfere with the activities Coates personally feared "the retributive nature of the Church of Scientology's Fair Game practice and [has] endorsed the denial of CAN membership to plaintiff Hart solely on that basis." Although plaintiff was denied membership in CAN-LA, Coates "could and would arrange for him to speak to a gathering of CAN-LA members and/or friends at his request."
of CAN-LA in any manner whatsoever."
In January 1992, plaintiff filed an amended complaint for damages and preliminary and permanent injunction for religious discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and also filed application for preliminary injunction. Defendants opposed the application. After hearing, the court took the matter under submission. By minute order of February 28, 1992, the trial court issued a scholarly eight-page ruling denying plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction on the grounds that plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonable probability he would succeed in showing that CAN-LA is a business establishment within the meaning of Civil Code section 51 and that plaintiff did not demonstrate that the balance of hardships favored him. Plaintiff timely filed notice of appeal from the order denying his application for preliminary injunction.
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Taking Offense v. State
-
Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy
...is perhaps the most restrictive interpretation of the Unruh Act in the history of the Supreme Court. In Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 787, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, this court properly distinguished, but did not overrule, its decision in Curran I. The rules of law of C......
-
Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts
... ... (See, e.g., Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 ... ...
-
Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co.
... ... 467, 707 P.2d 840; Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 785, 16 Cal. Rptr.2d ... ...