Singh

Singh v. Singh

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 1264·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 54·2004 Daily Journal DAR 641·9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 496
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 20, 2004A100705California12,933 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lambden, J.

The Sikh Temple-San Francisco Bay Area, Inc. (the Sikh Temple) and its current board of directors (also referred to as the Supreme Council or Panj Pyaras), Gurdial Singh, Harjot Singh, Amarjit Singh, Gurdev Singh, and Mota Singh, challenge a judgment following a bench trial. The Sikh Temple members Ala Singh, Kamail Singh, Ram Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Harjinder Singh, Joginder Singh, and Gurmeet Singh (collectively respondents or plaintiffs) sued the Sikh Temple and its current board of directors (collectively appellants or defendants) because they alleged that the board of directors or Supreme Council remained in office in violation of Corporations Code section 9220, subdivision (b). The trial court found, among other things, that the Temple’s bylaws do not specify a life term for the Supreme Council and section 9220 therefore applies, creating a term of one year. Appellants challenge this ruling, contending that a prior judgment involving them as the defendants should have been given collateral estoppel effect; the ruling violates their First Amendment rights; the ruling represents an unconstitutional entanglement with religion; and the bylaws were not silent regarding the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.