The Church cross-appealed from the judgment of dismissal for Molko, and appealed from the judgment of dismissal for Maxwell and Alexander. Molko and Leal appealed from the summary judgment for the Church. Similarly, the court entered a judgment of dismissal for Maxwell after sustaining his demurrer without leave to amend as to the Church's amended cross-complaint against him. The court granted summary judgment for the Church in the action brought by Molko and Leal, and entered a judgment of dismissal for Molko after sustaining his demurrer without leave to amend as to the Church's amended cross-complaint against him. Code, §§ 51.7, 52.) The Church also sued Maxwell for full or partial indemnity, on the theory that Maxwell, by kidnapping and deprogramming Molko, had wholly or partially caused any damages for which the Church might be found liable to Molko. 2 alleging their deprogramming activities violated the Church's federal and state civil rights. The Church filed a first amended cross-complaint against Molko and Neil Maxwell, fn. Molko also sought restitution of a $6,000 gift he alleged the Church obtained from him by undue influence. Molko and Leal each asserted causes of action for fraud and deceit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. Thereafter Molko and Leal filed the present action against the Church, alleging they had been fraudulently induced to join the Church through a variety of deceptive tactics on the part of some of its members. 1 While members of the Church, they were on separate occasions forcibly abducted from a public street by third parties and "deprogrammed" - i.e., persuaded to relinquish their belief in and association with the Church. This case raises three issues: (1) whether, consistently with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and of article I, section 4, of the California Constitution, former members of a religious organization may sue that organization on various causes of action arising out of its allegedly deceptive recruitment practices (2) whether the organization may cross-complain against a former member and others for allegedly violating its civil rights under federal and state statutes and (3) whether California's equitable indemnity doctrine permits an intentional tortfeasor to obtain indemnity from concurrent intentional tortfeasors on a comparative fault basis.Īppellants David Molko and Tracy Leal are former members of the Unification Church. Trent, Jr., and Remcho, Johansen & Purcell as Amici Curiae. Bersoff, Kit Adelman-Pierson, Ennis, Friedman & Bersoff, Michael J. Jackson, MacDonald, Halsted & Laybourne, Baker & McKenzie, Bruce J. Wiener, Tuttle & Taylor, Paul Morantz, Robert H. Gibbs for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. Dorskind, Friedman, Sloan & Ross and Lawrence A. Leal, Kelly, Leal, Olimpia, Davilla & Whelan, Kelly, Leal & Davilla and Kelly, Leal & Olimpia for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, Plaintiff and Appellant and Cross-defendant and Respondent. Separate concurring and dissenting opinion by Anderson (Carl W.), J.)įord Greene, Shapiro & Shapiro, Carl Shapiro, Aylsworth C. ![]() J., Broussard, Arguelles, Eagleson and Kaufman, JJ., concurring. HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants NEIL MAXWELL, Cross-defendant and Respondent ![]() ![]() DAVID MOLKO, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant TRACY LEAL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |