Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 19 February 1971
• Citation: 15 Cal.App.3d 405,93 Cal.Rptr. 338
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO, a California corporation sole, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OFALAMEDA, Respondent; William SHEFFIELD, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 29309.

Page 338

93 Cal.Rptr. 338

15 Cal.App.3d 405

The ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO, a California corporation sole, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OFALAMEDA, Respondent William SHEFFIELD, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 29309.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Feb. 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1971.

Hearing Denied April 14, 1971.

John F. Duff, San Francisco, for petitioner.

William Sheffield, in pro. per.

DAVID, ^* Associate Justice.

Petitioner, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco ('Archbishop'), a corporation sole, is a defendant in an action brought by real party in interest, William Sheffield, for $260 damages. The Archbishop seeks mandate to compel respondent, the Alameda County Superior Court, to enter summary judgment in its favor, or prohibition to restrain further proceedings against it.

Facts: According to Sheffield, the following events led to filing of his complaint: In 1968, Sheffield, while traveling through Switzerland, visited the Hospice du Great St. Bernard, a monastery operated by the Canons Regular of St. Augustine, a Roman Catholic order. He entered into an agreement with Fr. Bernard Cretton, the monk in charge, to purchase a St. Bernard dog for $175, payable in $20 installments. The dog was to be shipped from Geneva to Sheffield's home in Los Angeles upon payment of the first installment. Sheffield agreed to pay the $125 freight charge from Geneva to Los Angeles. After returning to California, Sheffield paid two additional installments, making a total paid of $60, but did not receive the dog. He then wrote the monastery asking either for shipment or for refund of his money. The monastery replied that the dog would not be sent until Sheffield paid the entire purchase price plus additional 'fees' to cover Fr. Cretton's trip to Geneva to deliver the dog to the airline. Sheffield was also told that his $60 would not be refunded, as it had cost that much to 'carry your account on the books.'

Sheffield filed suit in San Francisco Municipal Court against 'THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH d.b.a., THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO, a corporation sole; THE BISHOP OF ROME, THE HOLY SEE, THE CANONS REGULAR OF ST. AUGUSTINE; AND FR. BERNARD CRETTON, and DOES I--X.' The Archbishop's demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and the action was dismissed. The order was affirmed on appeal to the appellate department of the superior court. Although the record submitted by the parties does not show the reasons for the decision, Sheffield states that court determined that the municipal court had no jurisdiction because Sheffield was suing the Archbishop on an 'alter ego' theory, which is equitable in nature. (Castellini v. Municipal Court (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 174, 86 Cal.Rptr. 698.)

Sheffield then filed an identical complaint in the Superior Court of Alameda County. The complaint alleges that defendants Archbishop and the Canons Regular of St. Augustine were controlled and dominated by defendants Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome and the Holy See, that there exists a 'unity of interest and ownership between all and each of the defendants,' that the Archbishop and the Canons Regular were a 'mere shell and naked framework which defendants Roman Catholic Church, The Bishop of Rome, and The Holy See, have used and do now use as a mere conduit for the conduit of their ideas, business, property, and affairs,' and that all defendants are 'alter egos' of each other. Sheffield prayed for $260 damages, consisting of $60 deposited with the monastery and $200 representing the additional amount he had to pay for a similar dog in California.

The Archbishop's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment were denied by respondent. In support of the motion for summary judgment, the Archbishop submitted an affidavit by Monsignor Donnell A. Walsh, attorney in fact for the Archbishop, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and a Doctor of Canon Law. Monsignor Walsh stated that the Archbishop 'was not a party to said contract, had no knowledge of the alleged transaction, was not a participant and has no interest therein, and has had no business relationship or dealings, directly or indirectly' with Sheffield or the Canons Regular of St. Augustine. Monsignor Walsh further stated that the Archbishop was a 'distinct legal entity' incorporated to 'administer ecclesiastical property and temporal affairs in the Archdiocese of San Francisco' and that the Code of Canon Law is consistent with the California Corporations Code 'in that the Archdiocese of San Francisco is recognized therein as an entirely separate and distinct juridical entity which, under the Archbishop of San Francisco, has the dominion, ownership, possession and control of its assets as well as the responsibility to meet its own financial obligations.' Monsignor Walsh also alleged that the Archbishop 'never has been in the business, directly or indirectly of raising and/or selling St. Bernard dogs in Switzerland or anywhere else; and no commercial of financial relationship or connection or interest whatsoever has ever existed between such corporation sole and said Seller (Canons Regular of St. Augustine).'

Sheffield submitted two counter-affidavits, one signed by himself and his wife, and one signed by Peter Shannon, who was described as a Licentiate in Canon Law from the Gregorian University in Rome, Notary and Pro-Synodal Judge of the Archdiocese of Chicago, past president of the Canon Law Society of America, and author of many articles on Canon law. The Sheffields' affidavit merely recited the facts of the transaction with the monastery. Shannon declared that he agreed with Sheffield's argument that 'the Roman Catholic Church, governed by the Pope through the Code of Canon Law, Roman Congregations, and other eccelastical organs, is but on (sic) worldwide entity; not a composite of 'entirely separate' entities as claimed by Msgr. Donnell Walsh in his affidavit. The Roman Catholic Church considers itself to be a hierarchial society, with spiritual and temporal headquarters in Rome. The Pope possesses supreme spiritual authority over all Catholics throughout the world, and, both in law and practice, exercises considerable temporal control over the persons and property of clerics, religious, dioceses, and religious congregations throughout the world.'

We therefore turn to the issues:

1. Is writ relief a proper remedy to compel a trial court to grant a motion for summary judgment?

A writ of mandate is a proper remedy to compel a trial court to grant a motion for summary judgment where the affidavits in support of the moving party are sufficient to sustain a judgment in his favor, and his opponent does not by...