This case is about an association between a Catholic priest, Peter DeBellis, and a single woman, Michelle Stopyra Yaney. This petition spans several years and details their difficulty in seeking the protection of the courts in the State of California.

When petitioners attempted to seek relief from the dismissal of their case as a "Failure to Prosecute with Prejudice," they brought, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Craig Mullins, quoting Justice Kennedy regarding the freedom of expression while stating the following,

'Plaintiffs believe the right to raise and try discrimination of any kind is the most important form of expression and the most important First Amendment right this court has taken that from us. It repeatedly misplaced and rejected our second amended complaint and did not allow us an answer to our many requests for interrogatories stating it was too late for discovery."

The First Question Presented:

Did the California Supreme Court have a duty to protect petitioners' individual constitutional rights for a claim of discrimination on how the association, by definition, affected the actions of others given that the court knew the association affected petitioners as individuals differently by definition?

The Second Question Presented:

Petitioners, both of whom are insular and discrete minorities, ask under this court's proclaimed duty to oversee its lower courts under uniformity, did the California Supreme Court violate petitioners' Fourteenth Amendment Right of Equal Protection and Due Process when they summarily denied and rejected review of the dismissal of petitioners' appeal and discoveries that they had rejected petitioners' association while knowing their claim of discrimination had merit and had been denied filing and adjudication in the trial court?

Did the California Supreme Court have a duty to protect petitioners' individual constitutional rights for a claim of discrimination on how the association affected the actions of others