Filed 10/19/05 Church of Scientology v. Superior Court CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 977. |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARIN COUNTY,
Respondent;
GERALD ARMSTRONG, Real Party in Interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A107095
(Marin County Super. Ct. Nos.
15229, 157680, CV021632)
|
In a petition for writ of certiorari,
the Church of Scientology International (CSI)
seeks an order compelling the trial court to reinstate sentences imposed upon
Gerald
Armstrong in earlier contempt proceedings. We grant the petition in part.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In December 1986, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement under which
CSI paid Armstrong, a former Church member, $800,000 in exchange for his dismissal
of
claims against CSI. In addition, pursuant to paragraph
7.D. of the agreement, Armstrong
agreed to maintain confidentiality concerning his experiences with CSI and
not to publish
orally or in writing any information about his experiences with or knowledge
of CSI and
its affiliated individuals and organizations. Paragraph 7.D. also contained
a liquidated
1
damages provision under which Armstrong agreed that CSI was entitled to liquidated
damages in the amount of $50,000 for each breach of the agreement.1
In February 1992, CSI filed a complaint against Armstrong alleging that he
breached the settlement agreement by assisting counsel for other litigants
against CSI and
providing declarations in their cases describing his experiences with CSI.
On October
17, 1995, the court granted CSI’s motion
for summary adjudication on four causes of
action, concluding that Armstrong breached the settlement agreement entitling
CSI to
liquidated damages. The court found that Armstrong waived his First Amendment
rights
by signing the settlement agreement and rejected various challenges to the
liquidated
damages provision. The court also enjoined Armstrong from voluntarily assisting
anyone
other than a governmental entity engaged in litigation against CSI or defending
a claim
against it; facilitating the creation, publication, broadcast or writing of
any work referring
to CSI; or discussing CSI with anyone other than an immediate family member
or his
attorney. The court thereafter entered a judgment
against Armstrong in the amount of
$321,923—$300,000 in liquidated damages plus $21,923 in interest. In
addition, the
1 Paragraph 7.D. provides in relevant part: “Plaintiff [Armstrong]
agrees never to
create or publish or attempt to publish, and/or assist another to create for publication
by
means of magazine, article, book or other similar form, any writing or to broadcast
or to
assist another to create, write, film or video tape or audio tape any show, program
or
movie, or to grant interviews or discuss with others, concerning their experiences
with
the Church of Scientology, or concerning their personal or indirectly acquired
knowledge
or information concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard or any of
the
organizations, individuals and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. Plaintiff
further
agrees that he will maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to
his
experiences with the Church of Scientology and any knowledge or information he
may
have concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any of the organizations,
individuals and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. . . . Plaintiff agrees that
if the terms
of this paragraph are breached by him, that CSI and the other Releasees would
be entitled
to liquidated damages in the amount of $50,000 for each such breach. All monies
received
to induce or in payment for a breach of this Agreement, or any part thereof, shall
be held in a constructive trust pending the outcome of any litigation over said
breach.
The amount of liquidated damages herein is an estimate of the damages that each
party
would suffer in the event this Agreement is breached. The reasonableness of the
amount
of such damages [is] hereto acknowledged by Plaintiff.”
2
court awarded CSI costs of $334,671.75. This court dismissed Armstrong’s
appeal from
that judgment.
On June 5, 1997, the court found Armstrong in contempt
of its order enjoining him
from assisting others in litigation against CSI. The court fined Armstrong
$1,000 and
ordered that he be confined in the county jail for a period not to exceed 48
hours.
Armstrong did not appear at the hearing in the contempt proceedings and did
not file any
opposition or evidence. The court entered a second
order of contempt on February 20,
1998, finding that Armstrong violated the injunction in 13 separate incidents
between
September 2, 1997 and November 26, 1997, including disseminating a documentary
work
about CSI on the Internet. The court fined Armstrong $200 for each violation
for a total
of $2,600 and ordered that he be confined a total of 26 days in the county
jail. Again,
Armstrong failed to appear at the contempt proceedings. A third order
to show cause re
contempt proceeding was issued in December 2000. Armstrong filed an opposition
to the
court’s order to show cause but did not appear at the hearing. In his
opposition,
Armstrong admitted that he had violated the injunction but argued that he signed
the
settlement agreement under duress and that the injunction was unlawful. Armstrong
further averred that he was living in British Columbia, Canada. At the hearing
on
January 17, 2001, the court found that the injunction was valid and that Armstrong
violated it by making 131 postings on the Internet violating one or more provisions
of the
injunction, that he spoke in violation of the order at a public gathering
in Florida on
December 5, 1999, and that he gave a radio interview on December 10, 1999
that violated
the injunction. The court noted that there were two outstanding warrants for
Armstrong
which resulted from the two previous contempt proceedings and deferred imposition
of
punishment on the present contempt pending Armstrong’s apprehension.
On April 2, 2002, CSI filed another action
for breach of contract against
Armstrong again seeking to recover liquidated damages for Armstrong’s
breaches of the
settlement agreement. CSI alleged 201 breaches of paragraph 7.D. of the agreement
2 It appears this judgment debt was never paid and, ultimately, was
discharged in bankruptcy.
3
requiring Armstrong to maintain confidentiality about CSI and sought liquidated
damages
in the sum of $10,050,000. Armstrong answered
the complaint and admitted that he had
breached paragraph 7.D. of the agreement more than 200 times. He alleged that
the
provisions of paragraph 7.D. of the agreement were illegal, unconstitutional
and
unenforceable and raised numerous affirmative defenses including unconscionability
of
the agreement and invalidity of the liquidated damages provision.
On April 9, 2004, the case was called for trial.
At the outset, the court heard CSI’s
motion in limine to preclude Armstrong from introducing any evidence of defenses
to the
action on the grounds of collateral estoppel and res judicata. CSI argued
that the 131
breaches of the agreement for which it sought recovery had already been determined
to
violate the agreement and the injunction. The court took the motion in limine
under
submission and the parties proceeded with opening statements.
After presentation of opening statements, the
court granted the motion in limine,
finding that 131 breaches of the agreement did occur, and that “these
defenses” had been
previously litigated. The court, however, found that it would be unconscionable
to
“punish” Armstrong with liquidated damages in excess of the $800,000
he received as a
benefit under the settlement agreement. Noting that Armstrong had previously
been
“sanctioned” in the sum of $300,000, the court entered judgment
for CSI in the amount of
$500,000.
During the course of the proceedings, the court, with the agreement of the
parties,
consolidated the sentencing hearing on the third contempt proceeding with the
trial on
CSI’s current complaint. With respect to the contempt, the court discharged
the previous
bench warrants on the contempt citations of June 5, 1997 and February 20,
1998 and
ordered that the jail time imposed on the citations be deemed served. On the
third
contempt citation, the court sentenced Armstrong to five days in jail and imposed
a fine
of $1,000 which was ordered “concurrent with the judgment.” The
court further ordered
that the jail time was deemed served by Armstrong’s appearance in court.
4
II. DISCUSSION
CSI petitions for a writ of certiorari
to address the court’s order on the contempt
proceedings against Armstrong. As CSI acknowledges, the court’s order
in the
contempt proceedings is final and conclusive and is not an appealable order.
(Code Civ.
Proc., § 1222; Butler
v. Butler (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 132,
135-136.) The court’s order,
therefore, may be reviewed only upon certiorari if it is in excess of the court’s
jurisdiction. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1942) 20
Cal.2d 244, 246.) CSI has standing to
seek such review. (Id. at p. 247 [since petitioner is person for
whose protection the
injunction was granted, he is a party beneficially interested in the ruling
complained of
within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 1069].)
CSI is correct that the trial court had no jurisdiction
to alter the sentences imposed
in the first two contempt proceedings. “[J]udgments and orders of a
court or judge made
in cases of contempt are final and conclusive ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 1222),
and the court or
judge retains no jurisdiction to alter a completed judicial act.” (County
of Lake v.
Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d
815, 818.) Nor is there evidence to support
Armstrong’s claim that what occurred was actually a remission of punishment.
No
motion or request to remit was made at the hearing; the court merely announced
its
intention to “discharge the jail and the . . . contempt punishment[]
with the entry of the
judgment of $500,000.” After brief arguments from counsel, the court
issued its order
that the contempts were “deemed served.” In any event, there were
no circumstances in
the record justifying a remission of the sentences. “In unusual cases,
even though a
contempt judgment is sustained, if the violation was the result of an honest
mistake of
law, and compliance is ultimately obtained [italics added], either
the trial or appellate
court may grant a remission of punishment [italics omitted].” (8 Witkin,
Cal. Procedure
(4th ed. 1997) Enforcement of Judgment, § 347, p. 355; see City of
Vernon v. Superior
Court (1952) 39 Cal.2d 839, 842-843.)
Although Armstrong offers many arguments to
support his position his sentences should have been remitted—for example,
that his
3 CSI appealed from the judgment for liquidated damages but subsequently
moved to dismiss the appeal. We granted the motion.
5
violations of the agreement were expressions of his religious beliefs—he
has not argued
or shown that in violating the injunction he operated under an honest mistake
of law.
And, Armstrong makes no claim that he has complied, or will ever comply, with
the
injunction. Indeed, he repeated at oral argument his position that compliance
is “literally
impossible.” We conclude therefore that the court’s judgment here
discharging the bench
warrants on the contempt citations of June 5, 1997 and February 20, 1998 and
deeming
the sentences served was in error.
Armstrong makes several arguments challenging the
validity of the contempt
orders. He contends that the first contempt order was improper because he
was within his
rights to submit a declaration in a CSI litigation matter despite the contract
prohibiting
him from doing so because he was reporting a crime to the court. He urges
that the
second and third contempt orders violate his First Amendment right to the free
exercise
of his religion. Armstrong, however, is foreclosed from challenging the merits
of the
contempt orders in this writ proceeding. The contempt orders are final. (Code
Civ.
Proc., § 1222.)
CSI asserts that the court erred in its sentencing of Armstrong on the third
contempt citation. The court sentenced Armstrong to five days in jail and fined
him
$1,000 concurrent with the judgment in the breach of contract action. The
court deemed
the jail time served by Armstrong’s appearance in court. While the court
had the
discretion to determine the sentence on the basis of the evidence and within
the scope of
Code of Civil Procedure section
1218 (see 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed.
2000) Criminal Judgment, § 155, p. 183), its linking of the compensatory
damages of the
contract action with the contempt fine was in error (see In re Wales
(1957) 153
Cal.App.2d 117, 119 [“a contempt
proceeding is not a civil action, either at law or in
equity, but is a separate proceeding of a criminal nature [citations] notwithstanding
the
recognized practice to prosecute the contempt in the cause or proceeding out
of which it
4 As CSI points out, Armstrong did not seek review of the trial court’s
ruling on the validity of the injunction or the court’s determination that
his defenses had been previously litigated.
6
arose . . . .”]; Bailey v. Superior Court (1956) 142
Cal.App.2d 47, 54 [court erred in
awarding compensatory damages in contempt action]). The court simply had no
authority to order the fine in the contempt proceeding “concurrent”
with the judgment in
the civil action.
III. DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted in part. The trial court is
directed to
reinstate the sentences previously imposed on Armstrong for the contempt citations
of
June 5, 1997 and February 20, 1998 and to reinstate the fine on the third
contempt
citation. The parties are to bear their own costs.
|
________________________
RIVERA, J.
|
We concur:
___________________________
SEPULVEDA, Acting P. J.
___________________________
MUNTER, J.*
|
|
* Judge of the Superior Court of San Francisco County, assigned
by the Chief
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
A107095
|
|