## Facts

- Richelle L., an adult parishioner at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in San Francisco, alleged she relied on the spiritual guidance and pastoral authority of the church’s pastor, Reverend Felix Namocatcat.
- She alleged that in September 1999 the priest persuaded her to have sexual relations with him in the church rectory while acting as her pastor.
- Richelle alleged she was highly religious and long chaste, and that the priest used spiritual influence and assurances to convince her the sexual relationship was not improper and would not harm her faith.
- She alleged the priest had engaged in similar conduct with multiple parishioners at several churches.
- Richelle sought damages for emotional and psychological harm and sued the priest and the Roman Catholic Archbishop/Archdiocese.
- The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and deceit, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants demurred, asserting the religion clauses barred adjudication because resolving the claims would entangle the court in ecclesiastical matters.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and entered judgment for defendants; Richelle appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the religion clauses categorically bar civil tort claims against clergy and a church arising from a priest’s sexual relationship with an adult parishioner in a pastoral setting.
2. Whether the complaint adequately alleged a fiduciary relationship and breach capable of resolution under neutral, secular legal standards.
3. Whether adjudicating the pleaded theories would require impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine, pastoral duties, or church governance, creating excessive entanglement.
4. Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment sustaining demurrers without leave to amend.
- The court rejected a categorical constitutional immunity for clergy: in some circumstances, tort liability for breach of fiduciary duty based on a pastor’s sexual misconduct with a parishioner can be imposed using neutral principles of law.
- The court held that, as pleaded, Richelle’s claims were not justiciable because they depended on evaluating the priest’s performance of religiously defined pastoral obligations and standards.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend because Richelle did not show a reasonable possibility of reframing the claims around a secular duty and breach that could be adjudicated without religious inquiry.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment permits application of generally applicable tort law to religious actors when liability can be decided through neutral principles without interpreting religious doctrine or assessing ecclesiastical conduct.
- Courts must not adjudicate claims that require determining whether clergy complied with religious rules or the proper performance of pastoral or sacramental functions; such inquiries create excessive entanglement.
- A fiduciary relationship between clergy and a parishioner may exist in some circumstances, but liability must rest on a secular, articulable duty and breach that does not depend on religious standards.
- A demurrer may be sustained without leave to amend when the plaintiff fails to show a reasonable possibility of curing the defect by amendment.

## Conclusion

The court held that clergy are not automatically insulated from tort liability for sexual exploitation of adult parishioners, but affirmed dismissal because the plaintiff’s pleaded theories required judicial evaluation of religiously grounded pastoral duties, creating constitutionally prohibited entanglement, and she did not show how amendment could cure that defect.


Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 225 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)