Pines v. Tomson
Citation | 206 Cal.Rptr. 866,160 Cal.App.3d 370 |
Parties | , 1984-2 Trade Cases P 66,308 David PINES, George Aronek, d/b/a Grecian Art Tiles and Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. W.R. TOMSON and the Family of Faith Foundation, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 68622. |
Decision Date | 27 September 1984 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Weisz & Weisz, Michael B. Weisz and Richard A. Weisz, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and respondents.
Llewellyn & Associates, David L. Llewellyn, Jr., Santa Ana, for defendants and appellants.
Gilbert Gaynor and Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, for amicus curiae, ACLU Foundation of Southern Cal.
Plaintiffs and respondents David Pines, George Aronek, doing business under the fictitious name of Grecian Art Tiles, and
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 1 (individually, "Pines," "Aronek," "Grecian Art Tiles" and "the ADL," and collectively, "respondents") brought an action against defendants and appellants W.R. Tomson and the Family of Faith Foundation (individually, "Tomson" and the "Foundation," and collectively, "appellants"), charging violations of three California statutes which prohibit religious discrimination (Civ.Code, §§ 51, 51.5; Bus. & Prof.Code, § 16721; Bus. & Prof.Code, [160 Cal.App.3d 375] § 17200 et seq.). The trial court found for respondents and issued a wide-ranging judgment for injunctive and monetary relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part for the reasons stated below.
Since 1976, Tomson and his successor-in-interest, the Foundation, have owned and operated a business telephone directory called the "Christian Yellow Pages" (the "CYP"), which will only accept advertisements placed by a person who affirms orally and in writing that he has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior and is a "born-again" Christian. 2
Each CYP directory contains a full page message from the publishers of CYP, denominated "The Christian Yellow Pages Concept," which states:
level best--that he is honest and fair in his prices--and that the purchaser should be entitled to and receive courteous--considerate and Christian treatment in all transactions.
Tomson was the sole owner of the CYP logo and federally registered trademark until August 15, 1977, when he transferred to the Foundation all of his rights, interests, duties and obligations in the CYP, including the logo, the trademark and the right to receive royalties from the sale of CYP advertisements or listings. Thereafter, on August 29, 1977, the Foundation was incorporated under the laws of California as a non-profit religious corporation, with its "National" or home office in Modesto, California. Tomson is president of the Foundation and a member of its Board of Directors.
The CYP is modeled after the "Yellow Pages" of a telephone company and contains primarily advertisements and listings paid for by business or professional people and offers for sale secular or commercial goods and services. Christian adages and symbols and Biblical quotations occur on most pages of the directories. Each directory is published for one of nine separate geographical regions in the United States and the advertisements and listings are grouped according to region.
The "Contract of Appointment of Regional Director" between Tomson, as the National Director of the CYP, and the CYP Regional Director for the region which includes California, requires that the Regional Director accept orders for advertising space only from persons who qualify as "born-again" Christians.
Respondents Pines and Aronek are partners in Grecian Art Tiles, which imports tiles from Greece, some of which depict Christian images and scenes. On August 15, 1977, Pines and Aronek attempted to place an advertisement of their wares in the CYP. Because they are of the Jewish faith, Pines and Aronek could not and would not sign nor utter the "born-again" Christian oath. For that reason, they were not allowed to place their advertisement in the CYP. Pines and Aronek, joined by the ADL, acting as a private attorney general, brought the instant action against appellants, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
The trial court determined, inter alia, that publication and distribution by Tomson and the Foundation of "The Christian Yellow Pages Concept" in the CYP were acts of discriminatory business conduct on the basis of religion and acts which aid or incite discriminatory business conduct on the basis of religion; that their refusal to accept advertisements or listings from any person who refused to affirm he is a "born-again" Christian was arbitrary and discriminatory business conduct on the basis of religion; that their conduct and activity in producing, publishing and distributing the CYP and soliciting and selling advertisements and listings was secular commercial conduct performed for profit and, thus, the CYP was a "business establishment" within the meaning of Civil Code sections 51, 51.5 and 52; that their conduct in aiding and inciting discriminatory business conduct on the basis of religion violated Civil Code sections 51, 51.5 and 52; that their required exclusion of persons from "business transactions" on the basis of religion, by means of a policy expressed in a written document, violated Business and Professions Code section 16721; that their conduct The trial court's judgment awarded Pines and Aronek $250 each in damages, awarded Pines, Aronek and the ADL costs and reasonable attorneys fees and enjoined appellants from (1) requiring advertisers or listers in the CYP to affirm they are "born-again" Christians, (2) publishing in the CYP any "concept" statement or editorial policy, as exemplified by "The Christian Yellow Pages Concept," supra, and (3) publishing advertisements or material in the CYP which requires direct or indirect identification of the advertisers' or listers' religious affiliation. 3 Appellants timely appealed from the trial court's judgment.
constituted "unlawful and unfair business practices and unfair competition" which violated Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; that their discriminatory conduct "is not protected activity under the freedom of speech, press, association, or free exercise of religion provisions of the United States Constitution or the California State Constitution"; and that their discriminatory conduct caused Pines and Aronek to suffer "actual injury and damages in the amount of $250.00."
Appellant contends:
I. There is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that appellants' conduct and activities violated California statutory law (Civ.Code, §§ 51, 51.5, 52; Bus. & Prof.Code, §§ 16721, 16750; Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.) because:
A. Respondents lacked standing to sue for alleged violations of "the unfair competition" statute, Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., since they were not competitors of the appellants and did not allege the consuming public has been injured by appellants' conduct.
B. Respondents lacked standing to sue for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 16721 since they suffered no demonstrable injury to their "business or property" as required by Business and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court
...Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 215, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660; Pines v. Tomson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 370, 380, 206 Cal.Rptr. 866; Hernandez v. Atlantic Finance Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 65, 71-73, 164 Cal.Rptr. 279.) The court in such a suit i......
-
Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
...meaning prohibits prior restraints on speech (Dailey v. Superior Court (1896) 112 Cal. 94, 100, 44 P. 458; Pines v. Tomson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 370, 393, 206 Cal.Rptr. 866). Lawrence argues that even if the injunction is permissible under the federal Constitution, it is invalid under this ......
-
Leeb v. Delong
...of censorship. (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974) 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730; cf. Pines v. Tomson, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d 370, 206 Cal.Rptr. 866.) An editor's power is derivative of, and entirely subordinate to, that of the publisher. The other side of the censo......
-
Duncan v. Stuetzle, 94-55598
...D.C., there is no explicit reference anywhere in the complaint to interstate commerce. 13 See, e.g., Pines v. Tomson, 160 Cal.App.3d 370, 399-400, 206 Cal.Rptr. 866, 885 (2 Dist.1984) ("a court having jurisdiction of the parties may grant and enforce an injunction, although the injunction .......
-
California. Practice Text
...Act. 24 In 1992, the legislature added unfair “acts” to the already prohibited “practices,” 15. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 16721. 16. 160 Cal. App. 3d 370 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). 17. Id. at 381-82, 391-92. 18. 15 U.S.C. §§ 13(a)-(f). See, e,g., Eddins v. Redstone, 134 Cal. App. 4th 290 (Cal. Ct......
-
Business torts and actions
...on the basis of religion by only accepting advertisements from those who affirmed that they were “Christians.” Pines v. Tomson, 160 Cal. App. 3d 370, 385-86, 206 Cal. Rptr. 866 (1984). Discrimination is not arbitrary if it is related to a legitimate business interest. Harris v. Capital Grow......
-
California
...§§ 18-19. 14. State ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Texaco, Inc., 762 P.2d 385, 394-96 (Cal. 1988). 15. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 16721. 16. 160 Cal. App. 3d 370 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). 17. Id. at 381-82, 391-92. 18. 15 U.S.C. §§ 13(a)-(f). California 6-3 competition is destroyed or prevented,” and foc......