Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP00741, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCP00741 Hearing Date: November 22, 2024 Dept: 82
Beta Pi Sigma Sorority, Inc., Case No. 24STCP00741
v.
Hearing:
November 22, 2024
Location:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Department:
82
Ida F. Cochrane, et al. Judge:
Stephen I. Goorvitch
[Tentative] Order Overruling Demurrer to Verified
Petition for Writ of Mandate
INTRODUCTION
Respondents Ida F. Cochrane, Gwendolyn Hutchinson, Terri Stallings,
Cecelia Hamilton, Janet Echols, Verna Edwards, and Teresina Mahoney
(“Respondents”) demur to the petition for writ of mandate of Petitioner Beta Pi
Sigma Sorority, Inc. (“Petitioner”). Petitioner is a
non-profit sorority. This petition relates
to a dispute over who controls Petitioner and the accuracy of the Statement of
Information on file with the Secretary of State. The
demurrer is overruled.
LEGAL STANDARD
A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading, and the
grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from
judicially noticeable matters. (Code Civil Proc. § 430.30, subd. (a); Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “We assume the truth of the
allegations in the complaint, but do not assume the truth of contentions,
deductions, or conclusions of law.” (California Logistics, Inc. v.
State (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 247.) The allegations in the petition must be
liberally construed in favor of Petitioner on demurrer. (See Mobil Oil Corp. v Exxon Corp.
(1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 942, 947.) “A demurrer
must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner
v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not
the evidence or other extrinsic matters.”
(Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147
Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
DISCUSSION
Respondents contend that Petitioner has not stated a cause of action for
writ of mandate, including because the petition “does not allege the statute,
regulation, bylaw, or contractual provision that imposed a ministerial duty on
Respondents” and “the Petition fails to acknowledge the availability of the
internal remedies.” (Demurrer (“Dem.”)
4-5.) “A writ of mandate may be issued
by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel
the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station.” (Code
Civ. Proc. § 1085(a).) “The writ must be
issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in
the ordinary course of law.” (Code Civ.
Proc. § 1086.)
Here,
Petitioner alleges that Respondents “organized an unofficial and unauthorized
2023 National Convention in August 2023, wherein they elected a National Board
of Directors and national officers (‘Fake Board and/or Officers’).” (Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Pet.”) ¶ 1.)
Petitioner alleges that the “fake” board and officers “seized access to BPS
national checking accounts, . . . diverted BPS fund for unauthorized BPS
purposes; seized access to BPS’s website and improperly identified themselves
as notional board and national elected officials; [and] placed the Fake Board
and/or Officers onto BPS’s Statement of Information on file with [the]
California Secretary of State . . . .” (Id.
¶ 2.) Petitioner alleges that these
actions by Respondents violated the sorority’s bylaws and constitution. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 14-34, 36.) Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 directing Respondents to reverse these
actions and “discontinue identifying themselves as the national board and/or
national elected officers on BPS’s website and in BPS’s Statement of
Information on file with California Secretary of State.” (Id. Prayer ¶ 1a.-d.)
These allegations are sufficient to state a
cause of action. Contrary to
Respondents’ assertion, the
petition sufficiently identifies the parts of the bylaws and constitution at
issue. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 14-34, 36.) With the demurrer, Respondents
have not requested judicial notice of the bylaws or constitution of the
sorority or developed an argument that the relevant provisions either do not
apply or were not violated by the actions alleged in the petition. Although Respondents argue that the
sorority’s “bylaws provide internal mechanisms for resolving disputes
concerning officer elections, finances, and governance,” they have not
requested judicial notice of such bylaws or discussed the alleged “internal
mechanisms” for resolving disputes.
(Dem. 5.) The court cannot
determine from the face of the pleadings that Petitioner has failed to exhaust
any applicable internal remedies.
Respondents’
remaining arguments go to the merits of the petition, not the sufficiency of
the pleading, and are not persuasive at this stage. Specifically, the petition sufficiently
alleges the standing of Petitioner to challenge the alleged “unauthorized”
conduct of the Respondents. (Pet. ¶¶
1-4; see Dem. 5-6.) And while “courts intervene
only sparingly in disputes involving how private associations choose to govern
themselves,” Hee Shen Cemetery & Benevolent Assn. v. Yeong Wo Assn. (2024)
100 Cap.App.5th 231, 223, the court cannot conclude as a matter of law on
demurrer, without consideration of the parties’ evidence, that no intervention
is required in this case. (See Dem.
6-8.)
Based
upon the foregoing, the court overrules the demurrer on the merits. Accordingly, the court need not reach
Petitioner’s argument that the demurrer was untimely.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based
upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:
1. The demurrer is overruled.
2. The court orders Respondents to file an
answer.
3. Respondents’ counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of service with the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: November 22,
2024 ______________________
Stephen
I. Goorvitch
Superior
Court Judge