Schofield

This matter comes before us on a petition for writ of mandate after the trial court granted a motion for summary adjudication. We conclude plaintiffs’ first cause of action presents a purely ecclesiastical controversy not justiciable by civil courts. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication on that cause of action.

I. Facts and Procedural History

1. Standard of Review of Factual Issues.

On review of an order granting summary adjudication, we apply the same standard of review applicable on appeal from a grant of summary judgment. (See Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 631 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 336 ].) Accordingly, “ ‘[b]ecause this case comes before us after the trial court granted a motion for summary [adjudication], we take the facts from the record that was before the trial court when it ruled on that motion. [Citation.] “ ‘We review the trial court’s decision de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers except that *157 to which objections were made and sustained.’ ” [Citation.] We liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing…