Roman Catholic Archbishop Of San Francisco v. The Superior Court Of Alameda County

15 Cal. App. 3d 405 (1971)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1968, Sheffield (P), 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 P'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, P 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 P paid the entire purchase price plus additional 'fees' to cover Fr. Cretton's trip to Geneva to deliver the dog to the airline. P was also told that his $60 would not be refunded, as it had cost that much to 'carry your account on the books.' P 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.' D's demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed. P states that court determined that the municipal court had no jurisdiction because P was suing the Archbishop on an 'alter ego' theory, which is equitable in nature. P then filed an identical complaint in the Superior Court of Alameda County. The complaint alleges that D and the Canons Regular of St. Augustine were controlled and dominated by the 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 D 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. P 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. D's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment were denied. D 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. D also alleged that there was no commercial or financial relationship or connection or interest whatsoever has ever existed between such corporation sole and said Seller [Canons Regular of St. Augustine]. D 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.