Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCV08540, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08540    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 82

Rafael Raz, et al. v. Beith David Education Center, et al.

Case No. 24STCV08540

Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

            Plaintiffs filed a verified petition for an order voiding the election of the directors of the Beith David Education Center (“Beith David”), a non-profit religious corporation which operates as an Orthodox Jewish synagogue.  Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction shall not issue.  Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining Defendant Fahim Farivar from: (1) Interfering with a new membership meeting and election, (2) Attempting to intimidate or threaten any member of the congregation from requesting a new membership meeting and election, (3) Attempting to intimidate or threaten anyone in connection with voting in the election, and (4) “Holding a Board of Directors meeting and attempting to exercise any of the powers normally exercised by a Board of Directors, including collecting money in the name of Beith David.”  Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to prevent the Board from undertaking certain impeding actions, which include terminating the “longtime caterer” and designating a new caterer, as well as “questioning whether the Rabbi who certifies [the former caterer’s] food is qualified to do so.”  The Court need not reach the issue whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claims because the ex parte application is denied for several independent reasons. 

            First, the Court has no authority to grant this ex parte application because the Court cannot intervene in religious matters relating to the management and operation of a religious institution.  (See New v. Kroeger (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 800, 815-816, citations omitted.)  “The prohibition against civil court participation in sectarian disputes extends to issues involving membership, clergy credentials and discipline, as well as religious entity governance and administration.”  (Id., p. 815, citing Jones v. Wolf (1979( 443 U.S. 595, 602.)  In this case, Plaintiffs seek a court order that would prevent Beith David from terminating the “longtime caterer” and hiring a new caterer.  This effectively asks the Court to intervene in religious matters given the role of catering in implementing the laws of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws).  Similarly, Plaintiffs ask the Court to prevent Beith David from questioning the qualifications of the rabbi who certified the caterer.  In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue an order forcing Beith David to accept the kosher certification of a rabbi.  The Court cannot prevent Beith David from making its own decisions whether to accept or reject the credentials or religious certifications/opinions of rabbis. 

            Second, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate sufficient irreparable harm in any of the impending or contemplated actions by the board.  Simply, any decision by the board can be reversed or recompensed if a new board is elected.

            Finally, the balancing of the equities does not favor Plaintiffs.  To the contrary.  Plaintiffs seek an order that would prevent the board from making any decision until this litigation is resolved.  Such an order would paralyze Beith David and effectively prevent the synagogue from operating until the trial date, which probably will not occur for at least one year.  The Court will not close the synagogue—and deprive the congregants of its services—over a dispute concerning the election.

            Based upon the forgoing, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is denied.  Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.