High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 986451079 Sunrise AvenueSuite B-315Roseville, CA 95661Telephone (916) 549-8784E-Mail bvansickle@surewest.net Attorney for Plaintiff CLAIRE HEADLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACLAIRE HEADLEY
,Plaintiff,vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL, a corporateentity, RELIGIOUSTECHNOLOGY CENTER, acorporate entity AND DOES 1 - 20
Defendants.
CV 09-03987 DSF (MANx)JOINT RULE 26(F) REPORTDATE October 19, 2009TIME 1100 amPLACE Roybal Federal Building,Courtroom 840ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLEJUDGE DALE S. FISCHER
1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
A.STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges three causes of action. TheComplaint was filed in state court and initially based primarily on California law.The Complaint includes an allegation that defendants coerced and intimidatedPlaintiff into providing labor and services in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1589. Thiscreated federal jurisdiction. Defendants removed the case to this court.The three present causes of action are for restitution of wages under authority of state unfair business practice law, a request for injunctive relief prohibiting coerced abortions by female workers, and the forced labor claim for violations of the federal human trafficking laws and, in particular, the forcedlabor statute(18 UCS 1589).Plaintiff submits that the forced labor allegations will present questions of fact for a jury. The definition of “serious harm” at 18 USC 1589 (c) (2) is particularly pertinent to Plaintiff’s allegations, although Plaintiff submits that allfour means of illegally obtaining labor set forth in section 1589, numbers 1-4 areused by defendants and were used to illegally obtain labor or services fromPlaintiff.Plaintiff claims that she was an employee of defendants and was thereforeentitled to be paid minimum wage and overtime for her work for defendants. Bothdefendants controlled Plaintiff’s hours, wages, and working conditions. That issufficient to create an employee/employer relationship under California statelabor laws.The Fair Standards Labor Act (FSLA) presents an alternative andadditional requirement that defendant pay employees minimum wage andovertime. The application of the federal law, FSLA, is somewhat morecomplicated than application of state labor law.The FSLA covers persons engaged in commerce and persons who work for an employer engaged in commerce. Coverage of persons who directly work in
2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728commerce or production of goods for commerce is called “individual” coverage.Coverage of workers who work for an enterprise involved in commerce is called“enterprise” coverage. See, e.g. 29 CFR 776.0, 776.3, 776.8, 776.9, 776.11, and776.14.Plaintiff contends that she qualifies for coverage as an employee of theScientology enterprise, and both defendants in particular, under state,“individual” and ‘enterprise” coverage. The law provides three alternativegrounds for finding Plaintiff entitled to the protection of labor laws. Plaintiff alleges that she qualifies under all three grounds; however, she only needs toqualify under one of the three types of available coverage to prove entitlement tominimum wage and overtime. See also,
Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Soc.,
417 F.Supp. 449, 457-8, 465, & 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).Plaintiff contends that, under the state and federal labor laws as properlyapplied, the nature of defendant’s business, and the entities included within theScientology enterprise, are only applicable to “enterprise” coverage. However,Plaintiff further contends that the Scientology enterprise, including bothdefendants as members, qualifies as an “enterprise” under the federal labor lawsTherefore, Plaintiff contends that she qualifies for ‘enterprise’ coverage as well asstate and ‘individual” coverage.Plaintiff contends that the case most directly on point is
Mitchell v. Pilgrim Holiness Church Corp.,
210 F.2d.879 (7
th
Cir. 1954).
Mitchell
is apparently thesource of references in regulations to the rule that a non-profit entity is subject tothe federal labor laws if it engages in “commerce”. The commerce in
Mitchell
was the operation of a printing house and the distribution in interstate commerceof religious materials. This is essentially what CSI and RTC was doing in GoldenEra Productions.Further, Plaintiff contends that the Scientology enterprise, including bothdefendants, have the common business purpose of promoting, selling, and
3
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Add a Comment
AnonyMaryleft a comment
Documents Archive replied:
Labor Case Decision
From: Documents Archive
Category: Business/Law, Court Filings