Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BS174454, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BS174454    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Hebrew Discovery Center and Netanel Louie

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Plaintiffs Lisa Karlan, Cory Mac A’Ghobhainn, and Amy Jean Davis

Demurrer to Fourth Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this demurrer.

BACKGROUND

On July 19, 2018, APRL Fund, Inc., Cory Mac A’Ghobhainn, Amy Jean Davis, and Lisa Karlan filed this action against the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Captain Paul Vernon by filing their Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief.  On April 6, 2022, plaintiffs Lisa Karlan, Cory Mac A’Ghobhainn, and Amy Jean Davis (“Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Fourth Amended Complaint against defendants Hebrew Discovery Center and Netanel Louie (“Defendants”), asserting one cause of action for declaratory relief.

DEMURRER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

The court sustains Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for declaratory relief because it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs fail to allege an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the parties’ rights or obligations.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 872, 909 [setting forth two elements required to establish claims for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060].)

“‘The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.’”  (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79 [emphasis in original].)  “‘The “actual controversy” language in … section 1060 encompasses a probable future controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties.’”  (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546.)  The actual controversy language does not encompass “controversies that are ‘conjectural, anticipated to occur in the future, or an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion from the court.’”  (Ibid.)  A cause of action for declaratory relief adjudicates the rights and liabilities of “parties who have a relationship, either contractual or otherwise.”  (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 29.) 

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint asserts one cause of action for declaratory relief, and seeks the follow declaratory remedies: (1) declaratory relief that killing animals to be discarded and not for any purpose specifically authorized by statute violates Penal Code section 597, subdivision (a); (2) declaratory relief that killing animals to “visualize what death is” violates Penal Code section 597, subdivision (a), regardless of whether the motivation is secular or religious; and (3) declaratory relief that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not exempt Defendants from neutral laws of general applicability, including various provisions under the Penal Code, Water Code, Health and Safety Code, and Los Angeles Municipal Code.  (4AC, Prayer ¶¶ 1-3, pp. 19:27-20:6.)   

The court finds that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts and requests for declaratory relief that concern a definite and concrete controversy that “touch[es] the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.”  (Sanctity of Human Life Network v. Cal. Highway Patrol (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 858, 872.) 

In their Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]here is an actual and justiciable controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding applicability of neutral laws of general applicability to killing motivated by religion[,]” and that Plaintiffs and Defendants hold different contentions regarding whether intentionally killing and discarding chickens is legally permissible.  (4AC, ¶¶ 62-63.)  Thus, the controversy and legal rights alleged to be in dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants are based on (1) Defendants’ belief that their actions are legal and protected by the First Amendment, against (2) Plaintiffs’ beliefs that Defendants’ actions are unprotected and illegal.  (4AC, ¶¶ 65, 73.)  Plaintiffs therefore allege that “there will continue to be disputes and controversies over the legality of killing and discarding animals when religious motivation is involved” and request that the court make the three declarations set forth above.  (4AC, ¶ 78.)  Plaintiffs do not allege that the parties entered into contracts about which their legal rights and duties need to be adjudicated, or that the parties have entered into another relationship necessitating their rights and liabilities to each other be clarified.  (Centex Homes, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 28.)  Instead, Plaintiffs allege the controversy to be a dispute over the enforceability of laws, untethered to any rights or obligations of the parties. 

As set forth above, Plaintiffs request declarations that, in general, “killing animals to be discarded and not for any purpose specifically authorized by statute” and “killing animals to ‘visualize what death is’” violates Penal Code section 597, subdivision (a), and that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not exempt Defendants from neutral laws of general applicability.  (4AC, Prayer ¶¶ 1-3.)  Plaintiffs’ requests do not involve an actual controversy, but rather ask the court to issue an advisory opinion over an abstract, academic dispute regarding (1) whether killing animals to be discarded violates Penal Code section 597, subdivision (a), (2) whether killing animals to visualize death violates Penal Code section 597, subdivision (a), and (3) whether Defendants are subject to certain neutral laws of general applicability.  (4AC, Prayer ¶¶ 1-3.)  Plaintiffs’ allegations do not concern a dispute over their legal rights and obligations as to Defendants, and are focused on the general interpretation of laws instead of a current, justiciable controversy.

A cause of action for declaratory relief cannot request the court to issue an advisory opinion on an academic dispute, or to resolve abstract differences of legal opinion.  (Centex, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 29; Sanctity of Human Life Network, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 872 [“the proper rule of the judiciary does not extend to the resolution of abstract differences of legal opinion”] [internal quotations omitted].)  A declaratory “judgment must decree, not suggest, what the parties may or may not do.”  (Sanctity of Human Life Network, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 872  [internal quotations omitted].)  The court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a proper subject for declaratory relief.

The court notes that Plaintiffs raise two arguments in opposition.  First, Plaintiffs argue that plaintiff Karlan has standing because she entered into a contract with Defendants when she purchased two tickets to participate in the Kapparot ritual, and therefore may properly adjudicate whether their contract was illegal.  The court disagrees.  While Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Karlan purchased tickets in 2016 and 2017, Plaintiffs do not request the relief described in opposition in their Fourth Amended Complaint.  Even if Plaintiffs had alleged such a request, however, there are no facts establishing that any contracts created through the purchase of tickets are still being enforced, or establishing that those contracts would represent a present controversy to declare future rights, rather than to redress past wrongs associated with the 2016 and 2017 rituals.  (Jolley, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 909.)  Second, Plaintiffs contend that Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food & Agriculture (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 495 establishes that their Fourth Amended Complaint alleges a proper subject for declaratory relief.  However, as noted by Defendants in their reply, the plaintiff in Farm Sanctuary sought a declaration of the validity of a regulation as specifically authorized by Government Code section 11350, while Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief cause of action is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060.   (Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food & Agriculture (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 495, 501, fn. 4; Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 136, 144, fn. 6 [standing in Farm Sanctuary was established by statute and conceded by the defendant agency].)  

The court finds that Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint requests that the court issue an opinion resolving the differences of legal opinion, which is not a proper subject for declaratory relief for the reasons set forth above.  The court therefore finds that Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for declaratory relief does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and therefore sustains Defendants’ demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”  (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)  To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)  Here, the court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing how amendment will change the legal effect of their declaratory relief cause of action.  The court therefore sustains Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend.

ORDER

The court sustains defendants Hebrew Discovery Center and Netanel Louie’s demurrer to plaintiffs Lisa Karlan, Cory Mac A’Ghobhainn, and Amy Jean Davis’s Fourth Amended Complaint without leave to amend.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

The court orders defendants Hebrew Discovery Center and Netanel Louie to lodge and serve a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10 days of the date of this order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(1).)

The court sets an Order to Show Cause re dismissal (after sustaining demurrer without leave to amend) for hearing on ____________________, at 11:00 a.m.

The court orders defendants Hebrew Discovery Center and Netanel Louie to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 6, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court