|
|
Restrictions on
Claims for Punitive Damages Against Religious Corporations
California Code Civil Procedure § 425.14 (2007) |
| SUMMARY:
Code Civ. Proc., § 425.14 (claim of punitive damages against
religious corporation), is to protect religious organizations
from the expense of defending against punitive damage claims for
which a plaintiff who sues the church can show no likelihood of success.
Rowe v
Superior Court (1993, 2nd Dist.) 15 Cal. App. 4th 1711, 19 Cal. Rptr.
2d. 625. |
No claim for
punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or
religious corporation sole shall be included in a complaint or
other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an
amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary
damages to be filed. The court may allow the filing of an
amended pleading claiming punitive or exemplary damages on a
motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and upon a
finding, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits
presented, that the plaintiff has established evidence which
substantiates that plaintiff will meet the clear and convincing
standard of proof under Section 3294 of the Civil Code.
Nothing in this section is intended to affect the plaintiff's
right to discover evidence on the issue of punitive or exemplary
damages. |
|
RELATED CASE |
| OVERVIEW:
Code Civ. Proc., § 425.14, requiring a plaintiff to obtain leave
of court to amend a complaint to allege punitive damages against
a religious corporation, is a reasonable accommodation of
religion. It passes the criteria prescribed by the U.S. Supreme
Court and accordingly serves the interests embodied in the Free
Exercise Clause of U.S. Const., 1st Amend., without sacrificing
the interests represented by the Establishment Clause of that
provision. The requirement that a party sued for punitive
damages must either appear and defend against the claim or risk
a potentially immense forfeiture is a palpable and material
state-imposed burden of which the government may legitimately
relieve religious institutions, because it can rationally be
seen as posing a significant deterrent to the free exercise of
religion. Rowe v Superior Court (1993, 2nd Dist.) 15 Cal. App. 4th
1711, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625. |
|
|
Top
Back to
Laws & Statutes |
|
|
|
