There are basically three cases (strictly speaking, more, but we'll group them into a set of three). The first, Los Angeles Superior Court case RC485402, is what the California appeals court refers to as the "initial action" and what I've been calling the civil theft case against Fr Kelley. The second, Los Angeles Superior Court case BC487079, is the "unlawful detainer case", actually a suit and countersuit, in which the elected and ACA-appointed vestries each claim ownership of the parish property. This is the case that the elected vestry successfully appealed in 2014, which was sent back for retrial. The third, Los Angeles Superior Court case BS152017, is the unemployment insurance case, in which, the ACA-appointed vestry having exhausted its appeals with the California unemployment compensation board, is suing the board to overturn its ruling that Fr Kelley is entitled to unemployment benefits.
It's worth pointing out that only in the "unlawful detainer case" has Fr Kelley until recently had pro bono legal assistance. Until December 2014, he was fighting the "initial action" and the unemployment case in pro per, representing himself, although he had the very able and conscientious assistance of his senior warden, Dr Allan Trimpi. Representing himself, he has been able to succeed in arguing his administrative case with the unemployment commission, and on the "initial action", he has fought the ACA and the Bush vestry to a standstill, even though they are represented by Lancaster & Anastasia LLP. The successful administrative case is significant beyond the money involved, since it establishes a factual record that is damaging to the ACA-appointed vestry's position in the "initial action". This is a remarkable achievement and speaks well of both Fr Kelley and Dr Trimpi. In the "unlawful detainer case", the elected vestry was represented until December 2014 pro bono by TroyGould PC. With the successful appeal, they withdrew from the case.
At the start of the appeals process in the "unlawful detainer case", the California appeals court declared that the "initial action" and the "unlawful detainer case" were related. With the elected vestry's successful appeal of its case, the appeals court sent the two cases back for trial/retrial together. This trial will begin on April 14, 2015. Fr Kelley and the elected vestry will have pro bono representation from Greer & Rineer LLP in both cases at issue during this trial. A pre-trial conference in the unemployment insurance case is scheduled for February 25, 2015. However, the defendant in this case is the California unemployment board, not Fr Kelley, although he is a "party of interest". He will not be arguing any case in this trial and will not need representation, since a state's attorney will represent the state.
I think this record alone goes some distance to correct the defamatory impression that the ACA has tried to create about Fr Kelley and his case.
In forthcoming posts, I will discuss these cases in detail.
