A.S. Haley: Brace Yourselves in San Joaquin - Sound and Fury Follows

July 23, 2009

Word has just been received that the Fresno County Superior Court has affirmed its earlier tentative ruling granting the plaintiff ECUSA's and Bishop Jerry Lamb's motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action in their second amended complaint. The court issued its final ruling after having held the matter under submission for 77 days. The court heard extensive oral arguments on the motion on May 5, after having postponed the hearing six times since February 25 until it issued its tentative decision in the plaintiffs' favor. (As an informal indication of how impartial the decision is, note that the court sustained [upheld] every one of the plaintiffs' objections to the evidence offered by Bishop Schofield, while it overruled all twenty-one of Bishop Schofield's objections to the plaintiffs' evidence. It also reversed its tentative ruling made at the hearing to keep out the last-minute declarations filed by Bishops Lamb and Buchanan to cover gaps they had left in their original evidence. It allowed that evidence in, and said it did not need to hear the defendants' evidence, or give them any chance to respond.)

By law, the court was required to render its decision within 90 days of May 5, or by Monday, August 3. (Unlike the case with the State's legislators and their duty to enact a budget by July 1 of each year, if a judge cannot certify that all matters submitted to him within the last 90 days have been decided, he cannot draw his paycheck.) The lengthy period between hearing and final decision appears not to have been used to modify the court's earlier ruling to any great extent. (The ruling does not affect the case against Bishop Schofield's attorneys, who were added as defendants after the plaintiffs filed their motion.)

Surprisingly, the court's decision to grant the motion is no longer the bad piece of news it would have been had it happened on February 25, or shortly thereafter. I write this post immediately after receiving word of the court's ruling, in order to forestall the impact of the trumpet-blaring from Bishop Lamb, his supporters, and the Episcoleft blogworld that will now inevitably follow.

The reason why the ruling is not bad news for the defendants any longer is quite simple: the case itself has moved on. The parties are no longer concerned with the second amended complaint, which was the subject of the court's ruling. The plaintiffs have now filed, and the Schofield defendants have now answered, their fourth amended complaint in this case. That fourth amended complaint contains whole new theories about the alleged collusion between the various defendants (including the Bishop's law firm) to remove property from the Episcopal Church (USA) and its allegedly still-existing diocese. the rest