Mason v. Presbytery of San Francisco CA1/5

Filed 6/25/13 Mason v. Presbytery of San Francisco CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CAROLINE MASON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A135185 v. THE PRESBYTERY OF (Alameda County SAN FRANCISCO, Super. Ct. No. RG11574490) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Caroline Mason (appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment following its order sustaining, without leave to amend, the demurrer of defendant The Presbytery of San Francisco (respondent) to her first amended complaint. We affirm. BACKGROUND1 In 1996, appellant commenced respondent’s process to become a minister. She alleges she did so pursuant to a contract entitled the “1996 Steps and Procedures” manual (Manual). The Manual provided that when a candidate received a “call” to ministry, the

1 In this appeal from the judgment following the trial court’s order sustaining respondent’s demurrer, this court is obligated to “ ‘treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts which were properly pleaded.’ ” (Total Call Internat., Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 161, 166 (Total Call).) Our factual summary reflects this standard of review. (See Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1056, fn. 1.)

1

file containing all the materials accumulated during the course of the candidacy would be provided to the candidate. Appellant’s candidacy was terminated at a hearing in March 2006. Subsequently, appellant requested that respondent provide her with her candidacy file, but respondent refused. On August 2, 2010, respondent refused in writing to provide appellant the file. In May 2011, appellant filed a lawsuit against respondent alleging a claim for breach of contract. Among other things, she alleged respondent’s refusal to provide her candidacy file to her was a breach of contract. Respondent demurred to the complaint and appellant filed a first amended complaint (FAC) prior to the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer. The FAC contains two causes of action for breach of contract. The FAC requests that appellant’s entire candidacy file be provided to her and seeks $400,000 for lost wages and $700,000 for punitive and medical damages. Respondent demurred to the FAC and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court concluded that appellant “failed to allege sufficient facts that clearly and specifically state a cognizable claim(s) against [respondent] or a claim that is not barred by the ‘ecclesiastical’ rule.” The court entered judgment in respondent’s favor. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the trial court erred in concluding her breach of contract claim relating to access to her candidacy file is barred by the “rule of deference to ecclesiastical decisions.” (Iglesia Evangelica Latina, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Latin American Dist. of Assemblies of God (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 420, 440.)2 I. Standard of Review On appeal, we “ ‘review the complaint de novo to determine whether or not [it] alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory, [citation], or in