Jodo Shu Betsuin, a Buddhist Temple, was expelled from the Jodo Shu Buddhist sect by the umbrella organization that oversees the sect in North America. The expulsion resulted from an ongoing dispute over who would be the religious leaders of the Temple. After the expulsion, the umbrella organization prohibited the Temple from using its former property. The Temple sued for damages, claiming it was wrongfully evicted, seeking return of furnishings, religious objects and computers in the Temple, and seeking an order dissolving its oral partnership with the umbrella group. In Jodo Shu Betsuin v. Jodoshu North American Buddhist Missions, (Ct App. CA, Sept. 25, 2007), a California Court of Appeals permitted plaintiff to move to trial on two of its three claims.
The court held that adjudicating the eviction claim would unconstitutionally involve the court in determining an ecclesiastical issue—whether the disaffiliation pronouncement was properly reached: "The expulsion resulted from a dispute involving religious leadership. The religious leaders in question had been appointed by Jodo Shu leaders in Japan. The disaffiliation decision was confirmed at the highest levels of the hierarchical religious organization in Japan. The disaffiliation decision necessarily barred plaintiff from use of the temple property…." However the court held that the claims for conversion and partnership dissolution could probably be adjudicated without considering the propriety of the umbrella group’s disaffiliation order. Those claims, it held, created issues that should to go to trial.
Dissenting in part, Judge Mosk said: "If the lease is such that the plaintiff could not be evicted for doctrinal disputes or issues, then a court could determine that there was a wrongful eviction without addressing internal religious matters on the disaffiliation. Thus far, defendants' defense is not justification for the eviction, but rather that there was no valid lease."
