Court Opinion

ID: 9370859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 20:02:25.849295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.191229
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/14/23 Bennett v. Stockton Singles CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 DENNIS SHAWN BENNETT,                                                                         C093547

                    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                        (Super. Ct. No. STK-CV-
                                                                                      UNPI-2020-000-4510)
           v.

 STOCKTON SINGLES, INC.,

                    Defendant and Respondent.

         Dennis Shawn Bennett sued Stockton Singles, Inc. (Stockton Singles)—a
nonprofit mutual benefit corporation—after being removed from its board of directors.
He alleged that nearly two years before he filed suit the board’s president held a secret
meeting of the board without his knowledge, intentionally made false statements about
him at the meeting, and convinced the attending directors to vote for his removal.
Stockton Singles demurred, arguing, as relevant here, that Bennett’s claims were time-

                                                             1
barred under Corporations Code1 section 7341, subdivision (e)—a statute creating a one-
year statute of limitations for “[a]ny action challenging an expulsion, suspension or
termination of membership” from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. The trial court
agreed and entered judgment dismissing all Bennett’s claims.
        On Bennett’s appeal, we find the trial court improperly relied on section 7341.
Section 7341, subdivision (e), by its plain terms, creates a one-year statute of limitations
only for actions challenging “an expulsion, suspension or termination of membership”
from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. It says nothing, however, about actions
challenging a removal from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation’s board of directors—
which is a distinct type of action and the type of action that Bennett brings here. Because
we find the trial court relied on the wrong statute of limitations for these claims, and
because we decline to address Stockton Singles’ new argument raised for the first time on
appeal, we will reverse the trial court’s judgment to the extent it relied on section 7341.
                                     BACKGROUND
        On May 28, 2020, Bennett sued Stockton Singles, which all parties agree is a
nonprofit mutual benefit corporation.2 According to the complaint, Stockton Singles held

1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Corporations Code.
2 Stockton Singles requests that we take judicial notice of its articles of incorporation to
prove that it is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. Considering similar requests,
several courts have taken judicial notice of these materials, reasoning that the articles of
incorporation of a private entity are, once filed with the Secretary of State, “[o]fficial
acts” of the Secretary of State within the meaning of Evidence Code section 452,
subdivision (c). (See, e.g., Jones v. Goodman (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 521, 528, fn. 6;
California Aviation Council v. County of Amador (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 337, 344, fn. 7;
but see People v. Thacker (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 594, 598.) We need not, however,
address the propriety of taking judicial notice of these records. Because Bennett
concedes that Stockton Singles is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, we deny the
request as moot. (Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern California Investors, Inc. (2018)
28 Cal.App.5th 809, 815, fn. 5.)

                                              2
a meeting of its board of directors in May 2018 without notifying Bennett and one other
director, and, at the meeting, the attending directors voted to remove Bennett from the
board. Bennett, among other things, alleged that the board’s president and several other
directors intended the meeting to be “secretive in order to manipulate the remaining
board members” and that the president “use[d] fabricated and unjustified statements to
warrant the Board’s removal of [Bennett].” Bennett further alleged that these efforts
proved successful—the attending directors believed these statements and voted to remove
him from Stockton Singles’ board and to expel him from its membership.
       Bennett alleged 13 causes of action against Stockton Singles following his
removal from the board: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) bullying and harassment,
(3) conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty, (4) civil collusion, (5) defamation, (6) fraudulent
misrepresentation, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) malfeasance,
(9) preparing false evidence, (10) reckless misconduct, (11) violation of ultra vires
doctrine, (12) violation of corporate bylaws, and (13) violation of “Bane Act.” Bennett
sought damages, a declaration that his removal from Stockton Singles’ board was
improper, and fees and costs.
       Stockton Singles demurred to each of Bennett’s causes of action. It contended
Bennett’s defamation claim was time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 340,
subdivision (c)—which provides a one-year statute of limitations for actions for libel and
slander—and that his remaining claims were time-barred under section 7341, subdivision
(e)—which provides a one-year statute of limitations for actions challenging an expulsion
from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation’s membership.
       The trial court, over Bennett’s objection that section 7341 was inapplicable,
sustained the demurrer. Agreeing with Stockton Singles, it found Bennett’s claims time-
barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (c) and section 7341,
subdivision (e). The court later entered judgment dismissing all Bennett’s claims.
       Bennett timely appealed.

                                              3
                                        DISCUSSION
       Bennett contends the trial court wrongly found section 7341, subdivision (e)’s
one-year statute of limitations covered his claims concerning his removal from Stockton
Singles’ board of directors. He reasons that this statute is inapplicable because it deals
with expulsions from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation’s membership, not removals
from a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation’s board of directors. Stockton Singles, for its
part, does not dispute this point. But it contends the trial court still reached the right
result because the applicable statute of limitations, section 7527, provides an even shorter
limitations period of only nine months. After considering sections 7341 and 7527, both
of which deal with nonprofit mutual benefit corporations, we find reversal of the trial
court’s judgment necessary.
       We start with section 7341. That statute provides, in relevant part: “Any action
challenging an expulsion, suspension or termination of membership . . . must be
commenced within one year after the date of the expulsion, suspension or termination.”
(§ 7341, subd. (e).) But as Bennett points out, his chief complaint is not about his
expulsion from Stockton Singles’ membership; it is instead about his removal from its
board of directors—which is a distinct type of claim. Even Stockton Singles now
acknowledges this distinction and drops its argument that section 7341 bars Bennett’s
claims concerning his removal from the board.3
       We turn next to section 7527. It states: “An action challenging the validity of any
. . . removal of a director or directors must be commenced within nine months after the
. . . removal. If no such action is commenced, in the absence of fraud, any . . . removal of

3 Bennett mentions his expulsion from Stockton Singles’ membership in some of his
causes of action, including his seventh and tenth causes of action. But the focus of his
complaint, including his seventh and tenth causes of action, is that he was improperly
removed from Stockton Singles’ board.

                                               4
a director is conclusively presumed valid nine months thereafter.” Citing section 7527
for the first time on appeal, Stockton Singles contends this statute establishes a nine-
month limitations period for actions challenging a director’s removal. It then, quoting the
statute’s first sentence, asserts Bennett’s claims are untimely because he filed his suit
more than nine months after being removed from the board of directors.
       While we agree section 7527’s first sentence generally establishes a nine-month
limitations period for actions challenging a director’s removal, the statute’s second
sentence—which Stockton Singles neglects to mention—clarifies that this nine-month
limitations period applies only “in the absence of fraud.” And in this case, Bennett has
alleged he was removed because of fraud. He alleged in his complaint, for instance, that
Stockton Singles’ president “knowingly presented false and misleading information as
justification for [Bennett’s] removal from the Board” and “was successful, as the Board
believed the false information and voted for [Bennett’s] removal.” Bennett then asserted
various causes of actions premised on this alleged conduct, including that Stockton
Singles fraudulently obtained his removal from its board of directors.
       In invoking section 7527, Stockton Singles never suggests that the allegations in
Bennett’s complaint are insufficient to support his claim of fraud. (See People ex rel.
Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 772, 777 [at the demurrer
stage, courts must accept as true all properly pleaded allegations in the complaint].) Nor,
again, does it even acknowledge that section 7527’s nine-month limitations period
applies only “in the absence of fraud.” Under these circumstances, we will not entertain
Stockton Singles’ belatedly raised, and hardly developed, new argument premised on
section 7527. (See Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp.
Appeals Bd. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607, 623 [“whether we will entertain a new theory
raised for the first time on appeal is strictly a matter of discretion”].)

                                                5
       Because, in sum, we find the trial court improperly relied on section 7341, and
because we decline to address Stockton Singles’ new argument based on section 7527,
we will reverse the trial court’s judgment to the extent it relied on section 7341.
                                        DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed as to the defamation cause of action. In all other
respects, the judgment is reversed. Bennett is entitled to recover his costs on appeal.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

                                                      /s/
                                                  BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

    /s/
RENNER, Acting P. J.

    /s/
EARL, J.

                                              6