Newsroom

Click on any title to expand news article or collapse news article.

 
 

Each year, all of the State Masters congregate to discuss pressing issues within their states as well as to attend seminars and exchange ideas about how to boost membership within the Grange.

This year, the event took place in Belleville, Illinois at Turkey Hill Grange#1370 between Friday, February 27 and Sunday, March 1. The conference, which was hosted but the Illinois State Grange, focused on the theme "Building the Grange for the Future".

Main topics of the weekend conference included delivering on the grass roots of what we do as an organization legislatively. There was also an in depth interactive presentation about the foundation of the Grange with regards to how our primary values have changed over our long history. A panel discuss was then held on the topic of how these values, including the Grange rules, ritual, and culture, help local Granges prosper.


"We had an excellent discussion on expanding the role of community service and ways to get involved with our local communities more," said National Grange Legislative Director, Burton Eller in regards to the panel discussion. "We, as an organization, were always seen as leaders in our communities. We need to get back to that foundation of community service and legislative outreach."

The State Master's of the Grange as well as the National Grange are committee to developing local Granges and fostering our community outreach at the local, state, and national level. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas on how to improve your community, don't hesitate to contact your State and National Grange offices for support.

Together, we can build the grange for the future!

The Dixon Grange #19 was reorganized and their Charter Awarded last evening 3/4/15, (sort of, the physical charter is on a plane somewhere between San Fransisco and St. Louis)

Please help us welcome Dixon Grange #19 into our Fraternal Organization by sending you well wishes and support to Congratulations to Master Dixon Grange #19 Ed LaRue

FINAL RULING Defendant Robert McFarland's demurrer to Plaintiffs-In-Intervention Ed Komski and the California State Grange, Inc.'s ("Intervenors") First Cause of Action for Declaratory Judgment in the Complaint in Intervention ("CII") is overruled. This action was initiated when Plaintiff National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry filed suit against Defendant California State Grange, Inc., Robert McFarland et al., regarding a dispute over the California State Grange and its leadership. Intervenors claim to be the newly reorganized California State Grange, Inc. authorized under the rules of the Grange while alleging that another group constituted of former officers and members of the California State Grange is operating in defiance of the Grange's rules. Intervenors assert causes of action for declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, conversion and ejectment in their complaint in intervention.

Defendant demurs only to the first cause of action for declaratory judgment on the basis that declaratory relief is not available where an accrued cause of action for damages provides an adequate remedy. The demurrer is overruled.

A cause of action "for declaratory relief is legally sufficient if it sets forth facts showing the existence of an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties under a written instrument or with respect to property and requests that the rights and duties of the parties be adjudged by the court." (Wellenkamp v. Bank of America (1978) 21 Cal.3d 943, 947.) The first cause of action clearly meets this standard. Intervenors alleged that defendants, including Defendant McFarland are former officer of the California State Grange and continue to hold themselves out as officers. (CII ¶¶ 6-9.) Intervenors set forth the rules governing the California State Grange allege that they are the current California State Grange entitled to use and control its property and that Defendant refuse to relinquish control. (Id. ¶¶3-4, 11-88, 101-103, 111-113, 116-122, 125-127, 129.) These allegations allege an actual ongoing controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties regarding the control of the California State Grange and its property. (Id. ¶¶ 130-132.) Thus, there is in fact a current dispute between the parties and therefore an actual controversy for purposes of CCP § 1060 that "admits of definitive and conclusive relief within the field of judicial administration, as distinguished from an advisory opinion upon a particular or hypothetical state of facts. The judgment must decree, not suggest, what the parties may or may not do." (Selby Realty Co. v. City of Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 117.)

Defendant's argument that the availability of damages precludes declaratory relief is incorrect. Indeed, CCP § 1060 recognizes the availability of causes of action seeking damages in addition to declaratory relief. (CCP § 1060 [stating that a party may bring a request for declaratory relief "either alone or with other relief...."].) Further, CCP § 1062 makes clear that a request for declaratory relief "shall not be construed as restricting any remedy, provisional or otherwise, provided by law for the benefit of any party to the action, and no judgment under this chapter shall preclude any party from obtaining additional relief based upon the same facts." For example, "if parties to a contract seek declaratory relief as to the validity of a contract, the court can declare the contract to be valid and enforceable and award damages for its breach in the interest of disposing of the entire controversy between the parties and granting complete relief." (County of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 608.) The instant action is no different. While Intervenors allege causes of action seeking damages, they nevertheless have alleged a valid cause of action for declaratory relief setting forth an actual ongoing controversy between themselves and Defendants regarding the control of the California State Grange and its property. The causes of action for damages will simply allow the Intervenors to obtain complete relief in one action. If successful, Intervenors will obtain compensation for the alleged losses already caused by Defendants' acts and will also obtain a declaration setting forth the rights and duties of the parties going forward thereby preventing future damage. The cases cited by Defendant do not dictate a different result. Indeed, the cases involve situations where the rights of the party seeking declaratory relief has " 'crystallized into a cause of action for past wrongs' such that a money judgment will fully resolve the dispute.'" (Cardellini v. Casey (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 389, 396.) Here, however, the CII does not solely involve past wrongs but rather an ongoing dispute with respect to the control of the California State Grange and its property. Further, contrary to Defendant's suggestion declaratory relief is not restricted to situations where the parties have a contractual relationship. Indeed the cited case simply highlighted the example of an ongoing contractual relationship as one "which will continue after resolution of the immediate dispute, and may give rise to additional claims" such that "declaratory relief can help guide their future conduct and avoid multiple lawsuits." (Id.) This is the situation at hand. If Defendant's argument were accepted, and CII were limited to damages, it would have to file multiple actions to recover for Defendants' alleged conduct of operating the California State Grange despite the allegations that they have no right to do so. This would invite the very danger that a declaratory relief action seeks to prevent. In other words, declaratory relief is entirely appropriate here as it will "guide [the parties'] future conduct and avoid multiple lawsuits." Further, Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 408 did not hold as Defendant suggests, that a right of action for damages precludes declaratory relief. Rather the court there found that a plaintiff who sought declaratory relief against a hospital where she had been treated for rape and allegedly failed to provide adequate options to prevent pregnancy failed to allege facts showing she would suffer future damages and could be fully compensated by an award of money damages. (Id. at 414.)

In addition, the Court rejects the claim that declaratory relief is inappropriate and duplicative of the request made by Plaintiff National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry in the main complaint. Not only is no authority cited for this proposition, but the Court simply notes that the CII alleges an actual controversy between Intervenors and Defendants while the complaint alleges an actual controversy between the National Grange and Defendants. Nothing precludes Intervenors from seeking to obtain a declaration as between themselves and Defendants even if the request is based on similar facts as the request made by National Grange as between itself and Defendants.

Defendant's arguments in reply that the declaratory relief cause of action is improper because it seeks to remove him from his position as president of the California State Grange and otherwise seeks an improper declaration which would result in the involuntary dissolution of a non-profit corporation are not considered by the Court. These arguments that the declaratory relief cause of action is improper because it seeks relief which the Court has no power to grant are based on citation to authority that was not cited to in the demurrer. Indeed, the reply reads as an entirely different basis for the demurrer which simply argued that an accrued cause of action exists for damages.

The demurrer is overruled. Defendant shall file and serve his answer no later than March 9, 2015. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

After the National Grange filed the state court lawsuit in 2012, McFarland counter-sued the National Grange, Ed Luttrell, Martha Stefenoni, and Shirley Baker for defamation. McFarland claimed that statements by the National Grange that he had acted improperly and in violation of Grange law were false and defamatory. He also claimed Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Intrusion, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Relations and Infliction of Emotional Distress. Today, the judge presiding over the state court lawsuit (now involving the National Grange and the California State Grange together against the McFarland Group) granted summary judgment to the National Grange on ALL McFarland’s cross-claims. In other words, the judge, after reviewing all of the evidence, concluded that there was no basis for McFarland’s claims and dismissed them ALL.
As always, I encourage you to read the documents and decide for yourselves what to make of them.
Click to see these documents:

McFarland’s First Amended Complaint for Defamation
National Grange’s Motion for Summary Judgment
McFarland’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
National Grange’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Court Order Granting Summary Judgment


Ed Komski, President, CEO and Master
California State Grange
The Grange of the State of California’s Order of Patrons of Husbandry, Chartered
a California non-profit Corporation

After the National Grange filed the state court lawsuit in 2012, McFarland counter-sued the National Grange, Ed Luttrell, Martha Stefenoni, and Shirley Baker for defamation. McFarland claimed that statements by the National Grange that he had acted improperly and in violation of Grange law were false and defamatory. He also claimed Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Intrusion, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Relations and Infliction of Emotional Distress. Today, the judge presiding over the state court lawsuit (now involving the National Grange and the California State Grange together against the McFarland Group) granted summary judgment to the National Grange on ALL McFarland’s cross-claims. In other words, the judge, after reviewing all of the evidence, concluded that there was no basis for McFarland’s claims and dismissed them ALL.

As always, I encourage you to read the documents and decide for yourselves what to make of them. Click to see these ADDITIONAL documents:

McFarland’s Objection to Evidence
National Grange’s Objection Declaration of McFarland
National Grange’s Objection Declaration of Luvaas
National Grange’s Objection Declaration of Griffith
National Grange’s Objection Declaration of Reeves

The McFarland's Group attempt to postpone and delay the trademark case filed by the National Grange against them was denied by the Federal Court on 1/14/15.

Click to see these documents:
McFarland Group's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
National Grange's Opposition to McFarland's Group Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
US District Federal Court Order Denying Motion to Modify

Minute Order Pursuant to CCP 403, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention move to transfer California State Grange v. The Grange of the State of California's Order of Patrons of Husbandry, Chartered, et al., No. 163389, pending in the Superior Court of Butte County, to Sacramento County Court (the "Butte Action"), and consolidate the Butte Action with the instant lawsuit.

The procedure for coordination of actions may be invoked when civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts. (CCP § 404.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 403, a motion for coordination of noncomplex actions must be supported by a showing that (1) the actions involve a common question of fact or law; (2) the actions are noncomplex; (3) the actions meet the standards specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1; and (4) the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. (CCP § 403.)

In this case, the Court concludes that each of these elements has been met. The Court addresses these factors below. First, the instant lawsuit and the Butte Action both stem from the same central allegations and questions regarding which organization is the "true" California State Grange. Second, these actions are noncomplex, pursuant to CRC 3.400 et seq. Third, transfer and coordination would promote the ends of justice because the cases involve the same factual and legal issues, and the Butte Action was only recently filed, in November 2014. (CCP 404.1)

Finally, while Plaintiffs-in-Intervention submit an attorney declaration attesting that the other involved parties would not agree to transfer, the Court has not received an opposition from any party, which it takes as a concession on the merits.

Accordingly, the motion to transfer and consolidate the actions is GRANTED. Moving party shall pay transfer fees. The lead case shall be The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry vs. The California State Grange (34-2012-00130439). The case management judge assigned to the lead case shall hear case management issues in the consolidated cases. The case management time lines applicable to the lead case shall govern both cases.

Status - Non-Profit with the IRS, CA–SOS and CA-FTB

California State Grange Officers and Members:

As we move forward, some business housekeeping must begin within each community or subordinate Grange. Please review and verify the status of your Grange within California. Please contact us for guidance and assistance on these issues. We have assembled a team of Non-Profit & Corporate professionals to assist you:

1. IRS – United States Internal Revenue Service
a. Non Profit Status current - Group “1160”
i. As of 7/2014, only 55% of Granges were in Good Standing, 40% were Suspended or Revoked, and 5% had their own determination letter from the IRS.
1. If you are one of the 55% of Granges CURRENTLY LISTED in the Group 1160 as an active participant, DO NOT request inclusion until notice of being “unlisted” occurs. This protects your current exemption. Changes are reported to the IRS at least 90 days before the end of the tax year. Check by filing in January or February to see if a 990-N is accepted. Otherwise request inclusion on the new Group “6066”record.
2. If your Grange was SUSPENDED or REVOKED after 2010 and has never requested reinstatement, you must file Form 1120 (and pay any tax due) from the period of revocation to the date the new Group Exemption was granted (retroactive to August 9, 2012). October 15, 2014
3. If you hold your own Determination – DO NOTHING with Group “1160.”
b. Non-Profit NEW or Transfer Filing - Group “6066” Group Exemption 501(c)(5)
i. Your Grange must request inclusion in this group in writing by giving authorization for inclusion and providing the EIN and address information into this group.
ii. Your Grange should also state its previous tax status to the National Grange when requesting inclusion (compliant, revoked, new, etc.). If “reinstated,” you should have your own individual exemption letter.

Whether or not included, each subordinate Grange MUST file a 990-N, 990-EZ, or 990 on its own each year. The Group Number will be listed on your return.
1. California Secretary of State – SOS
2. California Franchise State Tax Board – FTB What causes suspension and its effects on tax-exempt status? a. There are three primary ways an organization may become suspended:
3. Failure to file your Statement of Information with the Secretary of State's (SOS) office.
4. Failure to pay an amount due.
5. Failure to file any past due tax returns with the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). When FTB or SOS suspends an organization, it cannot legally transact business, defend or initiate an action in court, protest assessments, or file a claim for refund of paid amounts. Your organization also loses the right to use the entity’s name. Your organization will remain suspended by SOS until all reviver requirements are met. b. Tax-exempt status revocation Once either FTB or SOS suspends an organization, their tax-exempt status may be revoked. Once the tax-exempt status is revoked, FTB 3500 (Exemption Application) must be filed again to re-apply for tax-exempt status. c. FTB suspended only If the tax-exempt status was not revoked, complete FTB 3557E (Application for Certificate of Reviver) and send it to the Exempt Organizations Unit mailing address. We will send you information of what is required for your Grange to comply with our requirements. Once your Grange is in compliance, we will send a letter that indicates the Grange is now in good standing to FTB. d. SOS suspended only To revive the organization, file a current Statement of Information with SOS. Once the organization is in good standing, SOS will send the entity a letter of proposed relief from suspension or forfeiture. e. Both FTB and SOS suspended

The entity should first follow the instructions for “SOS suspended only.” Once SOS provides a letter of proposed relief from suspension or forfeiture, and if the tax-exempt status was not revoked, complete and send FTB 3557E (Application for Certificate of Reviver) to the Exempt Organizations Unit mailing address. The State of California will send you information about what is required for your Grange to comply. Once your Grange is in compliance, the State of California will send a letter that indicates your organization is now in good standing with FTB.

This housekeeping can affect not only your Grange but you personally if you are or have been an Officer. The California SOS and FTB deficiencies are also being reviewed by the CA State Department of Food and Agriculture as we speak and may affect the ability of a Fair Team to participate in fairs under the California Department of Food and Agricultural governance. Your Board is committed to work with every Grange in California to perfect any of these deficiencies that may exists.

Time is of the essence. Questions: Ed Komski - EKomski@CAStateGrange.org or Chairwomen, Corporate and non-profit Commettee Inger Bevans - IBevans@IBevans@CAStateGrange.org

Text Here