Bennett v. Stockton Singles CA3

Filed 2/14/23 Bennett v. Stockton Singles CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

DENNIS SHAWN BENNETT, C093547

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CV- UNPI-2020-000-4510) v.

STOCKTON SINGLES, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Dennis Shawn Bennett sued Stockton Singles, Inc. (Stockton Singles)—a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation—after being removed from its board of directors. He alleged that nearly two years before he filed suit the board’s president held a secret meeting of the board without his knowledge, intentionally made false statements about him at the meeting, and convinced the attending directors to vote for his removal. Stockton Singles demurred, arguing, as relevant here, that Bennett’s claims were time-

1

barred under Corporations Code1 section 7341, subdivision (e)—a statute creating a one- year statute of limitations for “[a]ny action challenging an expulsion, suspension or termination of membership” from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. The trial court agreed and entered judgment dismissing all Bennett’s claims. On Bennett’s appeal, we find the trial court improperly relied on section 7341. Section 7341, subdivision (e), by its plain terms, creates a one-year statute of limitations only for actions challenging “an expulsion, suspension or termination of membership” from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. It says nothing, however, about actions challenging a removal from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation’s board of directors— which is a distinct type of action and the type of action that Bennett brings here. Because we find the trial court relied on the wrong statute of limitations for these claims, and because we decline to address Stockton Singles’ new argument raised for the first time on appeal, we will reverse the trial court’s judgment to the extent it relied on section 7341. BACKGROUND On May 28, 2020, Bennett sued Stockton Singles, which all parties agree is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation.2 According to the complaint, Stockton Singles held