CASE No.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
Church of Scientology International, a corporate entity
Petitioner,
y,
Superior Court for Los Angeles County
Respondent.
Laura Ann DeCrescenzo
Real Party in Interest
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION OR OTHER
APPROPRIATE RELIEF; MEMORANDUM; SUPPORTING EXHIBITS
‘On Petition From The Superior Court For the State of California For the County
of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 411018, Hon. John P, Doyle
KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP
Bert H. Deixler (70614)
bdeixler@kbkfirm.com
Nicholas F. Daum (236155)
dau @kbKgirm.com
10100 Santa Monica Bivd., Suite 1725
Los Angeles, C:
Telepho
Facsimile:
fornia 90067
310.556.2700
310.556.2705
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD,
KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, LLP
Erie M. Lieberman (pro hac vice)
45 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: 212.254.1111
Facsimile: 212.674.4614
Attorneys for Petitioner
Church of Scientology IntemationalCERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
(Cal, Rules of Court, Rule 8.208)
The following entities or persons have either (1) an ownership interest of
10 percent or more in the party or parties filing this certificate (Cal. Rules of
Court, Rule 8.208(c)(1)), or (2) a financial or other interest in the outcome of the
proceeding that the justices should consider in determining whether to disqualify
themselves (Cal, Rules of Court, Rule 8.208(¢)(2)):
Church of Scientology International
Laura Ann DeCrescenzo, aka Laura A. Dieckman
Religious Technology Center
Dated: June 1, 2016 Respectfully 1,
Nicl _—
KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP
Attomeys for Petitioner
Church of Scientology IntemationalTABLE OF CONTE!
INTRODUCTION
TL. AUTHENT! [Y OF EXHIBITS.
II THE PARTIES...
IV. TIMELINESS OF PETITION.
V. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.
A. Undisputed Facts Concerning Scientology Beliefs and
Practices... :
B. Undisputed Facts Conceming DeCrescenzo’s
Religious Background and Religious Positions with
‘the Church
C. Undisputed Facts Relevant to DeCrescenzo’s “Forced
Abortion” Claims (First and Second Causes of Action).
D. Undisputed Facts Relevant to DeCrescenzo’s False
Imprisonment Claims =
E. The Superior Court’s Order Denying Seas
Tiuciceat setae sees acest secre 2
F. The Superior Court’s Disclosure, Disqualification, and
Refusal To Void The Order Denying Summary
Judgment 122
VI. BASIS FOR RELI
REMEDIES.
Vil. PRAYER
VERIFICATION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
L
I.
THE APRIL 27, 2016 ORDER IS VOID BECAUSE THE
TRIAL JUDGE WHO ISSUED IT WAS DISQUALIFIED...
THE APRIL 27 ORDER VIOLATED THE COURT’S
DUTY TO CONSIDER THE CHURCH’S FIRST.
AMENDMENT IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW..
A. Introduction.
B. The Ministerial Exception Applies Here As A Matter
Of LawCc. The Church's First Amendment Immunity Means That
DeCrescenzo’s Abortion Claims Fail...
1¢ Church’s First Amendment Immunity Means That
‘The “False Imprisonment” Claims F:
E. The Church’s First Amendment Immunity Means That
The IED Claim Fails... eecensenh
F, The First Amendment Immunity Barred The Wage and
Hour and Section 970 Claims ......e..ssscseesssssssseecessenenennnnee 48
CONCLUSION... ADTABLE OF AUTHORITH
Page(s)
Cases
Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle,
598 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2010)
Aleazar v. Corporation of the Catholic Arbishop of Seattle,
627 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2010)...
Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago,
320 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2003). a7
Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus,
196 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 1999)... 1035, 47
NLRB v. Catholie Bishop of Chicago,
440 U.S. 490 (1979)...
Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court,
32 Cal, 4th $27 (2004)....... a
Christie v. City of El Centro,
135 Cal.App.4th 767 (2006).
Christofferson y. Church of Scientology of Portland,
57 Or. App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (1982) :
Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl.,
2010 WL 3184389 (C.D. Cal. 2010)...
Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
67 Cal. App.4th 995 (1998)...
Ess v. Eskaton Props., Inc.,
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 240, 97 Cal.App.4th 120 Cal. Ct. App.
3d Dist. 2002).
People v, Freeman,
47 Cal.Ath 993 (2010)
13, 14, 24, 31
Giometti v. Etienne,
219 Cal. 687 (1934)...... .29, 30Golden Gateway Ctr. V. Golden Gateway Tenants Assn.,
26 Cal.4th 1013 (2001 243
Gunn v. Mariners Church,
167 Cal. App.Ath 206 (2008)...00e 36,47
Headley, v. Church of Scientology Intl.,
2010 WL 3157064 (C.D. Cal. 20107 35, 36
Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl,
687 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2012).. passim
Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Indus., Inc.,
174 Cal.AppAth 1441 (2009).
Higgins v. Maher,
210 Cal.App.3d 1168 (1989)...
Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unification of World Christianity v.
New York City Tax Comm.,
55.N.Y. 24512, 450 N.Y.S 2d 292 (1978)
Hope International University v. Superior Court,
119 Cal.App.4th, 719, 730 (2004)
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC,
132 S. Ct. 694 (2012)... es
In Bates v. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc.,
179 Cal.App.4th 1125 (2009).
Kedroff'v. St. Nicholas Cathedral,
344 U.S. 94 (1952)...
Kerr v. Nelson,
7 Cal.2d 85 (1936)...
Laabs v. City of Victorville,
163 Cal.App.4th 1242 (2008).
Levy v. Superior Court in & for Los Angeles Cnt
15 Cal.2d 692 (1940).....
Lewis v. Holy Spirit Association for Unification of World
Christianity,
589 F. Supp. 10 (D. Mass. 1983)......Maxwell v. Brougher,
99 Cal. App. 2d 824 (1950)
Meroni v. Holy Spirit Ass'n,
506 N.Y.S.2d at 178...
Moore v. Driscoll,
135 Cal.App. 770 (1933
People v. Murphy,
98 Mise.2d 235, 242 N.Y.S.2d $40 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1977)...
Murphy v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of
New England, Inc.,
409 Mass. 842, 571 N.
d 340 (1991)...
Orlando v. Alamo,
646 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1981).....
Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society,
819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987).....
Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert,
264 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2008)....
Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial
Presbyterian Church,
393 USS. 440 (1969)...
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior
Court,
131 Cal Appth 417 (2005).
EEOC y. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh,
213 F.3d 795 (4th Cir. 2000)...
Ross v. Metro. Church of God,
471 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2007)...
Rossco Holdings Inc. v. Bank of Am.,
149 Cal.App.4th 1353 (2007)...
12, 27, 29, 30
Rweyemamu v, Cote,
520 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2008)... 36Schleicher v. Salvation Army,
518 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2008).
Schmoll v. Chapman Univ.,
70 Cal.App.Ath 1434 (1999).
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich,
426 U.S. 696 (1976)
Shallichsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Washington
363 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2004).
‘Shulman y. Group W Prods., Inc.,
18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998).
Silo v. CHW Med. Found.,
27 Cal. 4th 1097 (2002)
Smith v, Raleigh Dist. of the North Carolina Conference of
the United Methodist Church,
63 F. Supp. 2d 694 (E.D.N.C. 1999)...
Tatum v. S. Pac. Co.,
250 Cal.App.2d 40 (1967)...
Turner v. Unification Church,
473 F. Supp. 367 (D.RL. 1978)..
Universal Pictures Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles
Cnty,
9 Cal.App 2d 490 (1935).
Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc.,
234 Cal. App.3d 415 (1991)
Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal.,
535 F. Supp. 1125 (D. Mass.1982)...
Visueta v. General Motors Corp.,
234 Cal.App.3d 1609 (1991)...
Watson v. Jones,
80 US. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871)...
Werft v. Desert Sw. Annual Conference,
377 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2004)......Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U.S, 205 (1969)
Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure
Section 170.1(6XAY(i).
Section 170.1(6(A\(
Section 170,3(a)(4).
Section 170.3(d)
Section 437¢(m)(1)...
128
28
.29, 30
13, 24, 31
Labor Code 970.
Other Authorities
Cal. Labor Commissioner’s Office, DLSE Opinion 1988-10-27...
Wage and Hour Division, Dept. of Labor, Fie/d Operations
Handbook § 10b03(b)..
Rules
California Rules of Court
Rule 8,204...
Rute 8.208 :
Rule 8.208(€)(1)....
Rule 8.208(e)(2)
Rule 8.490...
Rule 8.490(m).
Constitutional Provisions
United States Constitution First Amendment1 INTRODUCTION
This case falls into that rare category in which a Writ of Mandate is not
only appropriate but necessary, for two separate reasons.
First, the petition involves an order issued by a disqualified judicial
officer. Days after entering an order denying summary judgment, the Superior
Court judge disclosed a potentiaily-disqualifying family relationship under Canon
3(E)(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethies. The family relationship was known to the
judge before he issued the summary judgment order. It was not known to the
parties. After receiving the trial judge's disclosure, Petitioner explained that at
east one member of the judge’s family was a planned trial witness. The trial
judge then disqualified himself from the action. But in so doing he refused to void
his prior summary judgment order. He did so even though if the required judicial
disclosure had been made earlier (which it should have been) the grounds for
disqualification would have been clear, causing both sides to seek and the judge to
order recusal before hearing and deciding the motion. That was error. It is error
that cannot be corrected after final judgment. Orders on judicial disqualification
are, by statute, expressly reviewable only by writ, see Code of Civil Procedure
Section 170.3(d).
Second, the petition seeks review of an order which inftinges upon an
immunity guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
That immunity precludes interference by secular courts on issues of religious
doctrine and the condition of employment of ministers. The purpose of the
immunity is precisely to avoid judicial interference with religion— including the
imerference caused by the process of enduring a trial on the merits. Thus, an
improper denial of that immunity cannot be corrected after trial and final
judgment, This Court has expressly so held, explaining that
Because of the very nature of the exception, it entails an
immunity on the part of a religious institution from the
intrusive examination into religious doctrine inherent in
the suit, Such an immunity implicates a somewhat
stronger interest than the more typical writ situation
where a litigant is simply asserting the right to win atthe summary judgment level... The very process of.
review itself threatens to entangle the court ina.
sectarian controversy.
Hope International University v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.Ath, 719, 730
(2004) (emphasis added).
‘The action was brought by Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest Laura
DeCrescenzo (“DeCrescenzo”), a former member of the Scientology religion
DeCrescenzo belonged to Scientology’s religious order, known as the Sea
Organization (“Sea Org”). The defendants are Petitioner-Defendant Church of
Scientology International (“Church”) and another Scientology-affiliated
organization, co-defendant Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), DeCrescenzo
alleged that as a member of the Sea Org she was subject to indoctrination and
psychological pressure to have an abortion so she could continue to serve the
religious order. She claimed that she participated in an intense religious
rehabilitation process known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPE”), She
claimed that she was required to undergo allegedly invasive confessional practices
known as “sec checks.” And she claimed she was required, over the more than 10-
year petiod in which she was a member of the religious order, to perform a heavy
work schedule without being paid minimum wages or overtime.
The Church filed a motion for summary judgment, It demonstrated that
DeCrescenzo was a “minister” within the meaning of the ministerial exception,
which provides broad constitutional immunity to a cluurch faced with allegations
such as those DeCrescenzo interposed. See, e.g., Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical
Lutheran Church v, EEOC, 132.8. Ct. 694 (2012); Hope International University
y. Superior Court, 119 Cal. Appdth 719 (2004),
‘The Church showed in its motion that the First Amendment and the
ministerial exception meant that none of DeCrescenzo’ s claims could be properly
resolved by, or even put before, a secular trial court. The Church demonstrated
that DeCrescenzo had agreed to undergo her abortion for religious reasons, ie., so
she could remain a member of the order and continue her religious work. It
showed that she repeatedly had stated publicly and testified that she participated
10in the RPF, “sec checks,” and other Sea Org practices for religious reasons (and
jon). And it
showed that the ministerial exception barred judicial interference with the terms
never against her will, as she was a committed member of the rel
and conditions of her religious employment and discipline.
The Superior Court (Doyle, J.) denied the motion on April 27, 2016. In so
doing, the Court declined to adjudicate at all whether the immuni
provided by
the ministerial exception applied to DeCrescenzo and her claims, in whole or in
part. Rather the Court stated that since the ministerial exception might not apply
to certain torts and since the claim by a church that an individual might be a
minister within the meaning of the exception could be examined by a court for
alleged “subterfuge,” the question could not be resolved by summary judgment,
But this was error, going to the power of the court to subject the church to trial by
ju
of law to be decided by the court. See Hosanna-Tabor B1
Determination of the applicability of the ministerial exception is a question
ngelical Lutheran
Church v. EEOC, 132.8. Ct. 694 (U.S. 2012) (holding ministerial privilege
applied as a matter of law); Smith v. Raleigh Dist. of the North Carolina
Conference of the United Methodist Church, 63 F. Supp. 2d 694, 706 (E.D.N.C.
1999) (“The applicability of the ministerial exception is a question of law for the
court”).
Nine business days after ruling on summary judgment, on May 10, 2016,
the Court issued a six-page minute order, containing a disclosure under Canon
3(E)(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethies. In the disclosure, Judge Doyle explained
that he had a first cousin who is a long-time Scientology minister. The ruling on
‘motion for summary judgment had been Judge Doyle's first substantive ruling in
the case. Petitioner's Exhibit (“PE”) 4083.
The disclosure explained that if any members of his family were witnesses
or potential witnesses, Judge Doyle would likely be forced to disqualify himself,
PE 4093. This disclosure was the first time the Church learned of any family
relationship between Judge Doyle and Scientology or the Sea Org. PE 4103. In
fact, the Church shall call at trial one, and possibly two other, of the Judge’s
family members; the one had worked closely with DeCrescenzo in the Sea Org.
iPE 4100. On May 16, two business days afier receiving the disclosure, the
Church submitted a verified statement to the Court in response to the disclosure,
explaining that at least one family member of the judge was a likely trial witness,
PE 4099: On May 18, 2016, Judge Doyle recused himself from the action.
Apparently, the basis for disqualification was Judge Doyle’s belief that his,
relationship with a potential family-member witness created a potential
impression of bias. PE 4107,
In so doing; however, Judge Doyle expressly declined to void the
summary judgment ruling. ‘This was error going to the very question of the
court's power to have acted at all. An order from a disqualified judicial officer is
void. Rossco Holdings Inc. v. Bank of Am., 149 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362 (2007).
“*[D]isqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not
when the disqualification is established,’ “[I]t is the fact of disqualification that
controls, not subsequent judicial action on that disqualification,”” fd. (quoting
Christie v. City of El Centro, 135 Cal.App-th 767, 776-777 (2006)). Here, Judge
Doyle knew of the family relationship before he issued the summary judgment
ruling, the family member's availability as a witness pre-existed the summary
judgment ruling, and it was only the fact that Judge Doyle belatedly disclosed the
relationship after ruling that prevented him from disqualifying himself earlier.
In these c'
cumstances, the denial of summary judgment was both
erroneous and void, and must be corrected on writ review,
IL = AUTHENTICITY OF EXHIBITS
All exhibits accompanying this petition are truc copies of original
documents on file with respondent court or true copies of reporter's transcripts of
proceedings therein. PE 4036-4082 contain a true copy of the original reporter's
transcript of the hearing of April 27, 2016, PE 4083-4090 sets forth the Superior
Court's Order denying summary judgment, PE 4093-4098 sets forth the Superior
Court's disclosure under Canon 3(6)(2) of the Code of Judieial Ethics, and PE
4107-4109 sets forth the Superior Court’s order of disqualification, rejecting the
voiding of the April 27, 2016 Minute Order. The exhibits are incorporated herein
by reference as though fully set forth in this petition. The exhibits are paginated
12consecutively from page 1 through page 4135, and page references in this petition
(to PE) are to the consecutive pagination,
UL THE PARTIES
‘The Church is the defendant in an’action pending in respondent Superior
Court entitled DeCrescenzo vs. Church of Scientology International, et al. LASC
No. BC411018. Plaintiff DeCrescenzo is named herein as the real party in
interest.
Iv. TIMELD
SS OF PETITION
‘The lower court’s order denying summary judgment was issued on April
27, 2016, and notice was served by mail by DeCrescenzo that same day. The
court extended the time in which petitioner could file this petition to and
including June 2, 2016, by order dated May 9, 2016. PE 4091. This writ is timely
under Code of Civil Procedure § 437¢(m)(1).
‘The trial court's order disqualifying Judge Doyle but rejecting the
Church’s request to void the April 27, 2016 order was entered on May 18, 2016.
It was served by the Court by mail. PE 4107. The wrt, insofar as it seeks reversal
of that order, is timely under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3(d), and indeed the
May 18, 2016 order is only reviewable by writ, see People v, Freeman, 47 Cal.Ath
993, 1000 (2010).
V. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
AL Undisputed Facts Concerning Scientology Beliefs and Practices
The Scientology religion is based upon the research, writings and lectures
of its Founder, L. Ron Hubbard. PE 3877. The basic tenet of Scientology is that
humans are immortal spiritual beings, called “thetans,”
who have lived many
lifetimes and have the potential of infinite survival. A thetan’s various bodies
have died, but his/her life experience never stops. Over the ages, thetans have lost
their spiritual identity and most of their native ability. Only through exploration of
his/her past, through participation in Scientology practices, can a thetan overcome
the negative experiences that reduce his/her inherent spiritual ability. PE 3877.
13Scientologists believe that the principle of existence is to “Survive,” which
is compartmented into eight “dynamics”: individual; family; groups; mankinds
living things; material things; spirituality; and infinity PE 3878, which, in
plaintiff's words, is “considered the God dynamic.” PE 3878-3879. A thetan’s
spiritual advance in Scientology is across all dynamics, as a necessary component
to spiritual salvation, PE 3879. A Scientologist is expected to act in a manner
that achieves “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics,” a core
belief of the religion that plaintiff always tried to follow. PE 3879.
Scientology's religious services include “training” and “auditing.”
Training involves the study of the Scripture, Auditing is ministered in confidential
one-on-one sessions between a specially trained individual called an auditor and a
parishioner. The auditor uses a device called an “E-Meter” to assist in locating
and removing barriers to spiritual progress from a person’s past and current lives.
PE 3881,
Ethics is Scientology's religious moral code. Past or current unethical acts
interfere with one’s spiritual progress. PE 3881-3882. Scientology ethics
counseling includes confessionals through which a parishioner confronts his
ethical transgressions, not only in his current life but in “past lives,” thereby
overcoming that barrier to spiritual progress. PE 3882. Some of these
confessionals are called “sec checks.” a. They are an essential part of the
religious practices of Scientology. PE 3882.
Some Scientologists choose to devote their lives to work for their religion
full time, in the same manner as monks, nuns, priests, and other clergy. They do
so by committing to join Scientology’s religious order, the Sea Org, PE 3885-
3886. To join the Sea Org, a Scientologist must undertake extensive training and
study, pass a fitness examination, and receive certification. Sea Org members sign
a symbolic commitment of one billion years, reflecting their dedication to service
in furtherance of the religion and the salvation of humanity and their awareness of
themselves a
immortal spiritual beings. 1d.
Potential Sea Org members are told they will be required to work long hours,
they will be subject to lifestyle and disciplinary restrictions on their movements and
4contacts, and they may be assigned anywhere in the world to further the goals of the
religion. PE 3888-3889, See Headley v. Church of Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d at
1174-75 (“The Sea Org's lifestyle constraints include strict policies on outside
communications, marriage, and children. Sea Org members” mail is censored and
phone calls are monitored as part of ministry di
line and policy”). Sea Org
members serve without expectation of compensation. PE 3889. They share tradition,
and lifestyle. They wear uniforms when on duty and have a merit-based maritime
rank and rating system and etiquette, They live communally and eat in common
dining halls. The Church provides them with all living necessities and a small
weekly allowance for personal incidentals. Id
Sea Org members are held to the highest ethical standards and agree to
submit to the discipline of the Sea Org. PE 3891. See Headley v. Church of
Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d at 1175 (“Sea Org members lean that strict discipline
is central to preserving the integrity of Scientology's ministry. If a member fails to
meet Scientology's ethical standards, he may be disciplined”), Ifa Sea Org member
is found to bave committed serious ethical violations, he/she may be asked to
participate in a program of spiritual rehabilitation, called the Rebabilitation Project
Force (“RPF"). PE 3951. In accepting participation in the RPF, Sea Org members
agree to undergo close supervision of their activities, to remain in relative isolation
from other Sea Org members, and to have limited contact with others while
undergoing their spiritual rehabilitation, PE 3952-3953. They engage in religious
study and auditing and physical labor. PE 3951. After one “graduates” from the RPE,
he/she will resume a Sea Org position, If'a Sea Org member chooses not to participate
in the RPF, he/she will be dismissed from the Sea Org and from all staff positions. Id
Such lifestyle restrictions and ecclesi
orders. See PE 0578-0579.
tical discipline are common to religious
A Sea Org member “may formally withdraw his vows and leave the
ministry through a process called ‘routing out," Headley v, Church of
Scientology Intl, 687 F.3d at 1175, which often includes participating in
Scientology ethics programs and the performance of manual chores. PE. 3893-
153894.! If a Sea Org member chooses to leave without routing out, other Sea Org I
members may attempt to persuade her to stay or to retum; such efforts reflect the
belief among Sea Org members that they are attempting to achieve the salvation
of the individual. PE 3901-3904. See Headley, 687 F.3d at 1175. A person who
insists on leaving or refuses to retum, without routing out, may be subject to
ecclesiastical discipline, including, but not necessarily, being declared a
“suppressive person,” which is the fimctional equivalent of being shunned or
excommunicated. Id. “Such practices are also typical of religious orders.” PE
0575-0576.
B. —_ Undisputed Facts Concerning DeCrescenzo’s Religious
Background and Religious Positions with the Church
DeCrescenzo was born into a family that practiced Scientology. PE 3904,
Her parents were staff members at Scientology churches. Jd. DeCrescenzo learned
and accepted Scientology doctrines and beliefs. PE 2764.
DeCrescenzo joined the Sea Org at the age of 12, with the written
permission of her parents, because she wanted “to help people.” PE 3906-3907,
‘She underwent extensive training under Scientology scriptures; she took 30-40
Scientology courses as training for her religious positions. Id. She also studied
and earned her high school equivalency diploma. PE 3917.
While DeCrescenzo held several positions over the course of her career at
the Church, most of her time was devoted to two. First, for six years, she held the
position of Investigations and Evaluation Director, whose function was to ensure
that other Sea Org members were properly performing their work. PE 3920-3921.
She conducted hundreds of investigations relating to the administration of the
Church for management under-performance and for ethics violations, conducted
ethics interviews (see checks) and used an E-Meter hundreds of times, and
recommended remedial programs. PE 3957. DeCrescenzo agreed that her job was
| Plaintiff knew “many people” who routed out of the Sea Org and remained
practicing Scientologists in good standing. PE 3896-3897, Indeed, plaintif?’s
sister Emily, whom plaintiff had recruited to join the Sea Org, routed out. PE
3899,done “in accordance with technology [Scientology religious practice]” and
“consistent with the teachings of the Scientology scripture.” PE 3922.
DeCrescenzo’s second major position was as “co-audit supervisor” while
she herself was on the RPF. She was responsible for supervising the provision of
auditing and confessionals to other Sea Org members who were there with her,
and did so for hours on a daily basis. PE 3984-3985.
C. Undisputed Facts Relevant to DeCrescenzo’s “Forced
Abortion” Claims (First and Second Causes of Action)
In 1995, DeCrescenzo married Jesse DeCrescenzo, who also was a Sea
Org member. PE 3930. They lived together in a private suite in a building that
housed other Sea Org members. Jesse and Laura were strongly committed to
serving in the Sea Org. Id. Laura practiced birth control. PE. 3932.
According to Church religious policy, a Sea Org member may not remain
in the Order if he or she has a young child, PE 3933-3934. The policy is based on
the fact, as DeCrescenzo testified, that Sea Org members would be unable to carry
out their responsibilities, which involve total commitment to one’s religious work,
Tong hours and strict discipline, while also taking responsible care of young
children. PE 3932-3933. Church policy requires a Sea Org member who becomes
‘a parent to leave the Sea Org by “routing out.” PE 3932-3934,
DeCresconzo unilaterally decided (o cease taking her birth control pills,
PE 3934, DeCrescenzo did not inform her husband of her decision or her desire to
have a baby. Id. DeCrescenzo became pregnant in February 1996. She was aware
Of the Sea Org policy, but “honestly didn’t care. [She] wanted to have a kid.” Id,
When she told Jesse she had become pregnant, in her words he “freaked
out,” stating he “was worried about not being able to raise a baby” and that “he
didn’t want to leave the Sea Org.” PE 3935.
DeCrescenzo testified that church officials tried to convince her to have an
abortion because she and her husband had important religious responsibilities to
fulfil in the Sea Org and it was the “greatest good for the greatest number of
dynamics” for them to remain in the Sea Org, which they could not do if they had
to care for a young child. PE 3936-3937. While DeCrescenzo claims that Jesse at
7one point agreed to leave the Sea Org with her to have a child, Jesse ultimately
told DeCrescenzo that he wanted to remain, and that he thought she should have
‘an abortion because, “We both have always wanted to be in the Sea Org.” PE
3939. DeCrescenzo claims that other Sea Org members verbally pressured Jesse
to remain. DeCrescenzo did not want to leave without him. PE 3940.
If DeCrescenzo had wished to leave the Sea Org in 1996 to have a chil
she could have done so. First, she could have routed out, PE 3934-3935,
‘Numerous women and their husbands have routed out for that very reason and
Temained Scientologists in good standing, PE 3942-3943. Indeed, Jesse himself
later routed out with his second wife in 2010 when she became pregnant, and
remains a Scientologist to this day. Alternatively, DeCrescenzo could have left
without “routing out.” To do so, however, would have been in violation of Sea
Org rules and policy and might have led to her expulsion from the Church or
excommunication. PE 3902.
DeCrescenzo chose not to leave the Sea Org. Instead, as she testified, she
‘was convinced to remain in the Sea Org, and to obtain an abortion to allow her to
do so, PE 3944-3945, DeCrescenzo acknowledged that “[nJo one physically
forced me to have an abortion” and that she ultimately was “convinced” to have
an abortion, because it was “the greatest good for the greatest number of
dynamies” and because she wanted to stay with Jesse, who had made clear that he
would not leave the Sea Org. /d. Notably, these were the only reasons proffered
by DeCrescenzo in her deposition for obtaining her abortion, and the only form of
“coercion” to obtain an abortion from the Church that she could identify. There is
no evidence whatsoever, and DeCrescenzo has never claimed, that anyone
physically forced her to obtain an abortion. No one within the Church performed
the abortion on DeCrescenzo; nor did anyone within the Church otherwise touch
DeCrescenzo during or Icading up to the abortion so as to constitute an assault,
nor (aside from the requirement that she leave the Sea Org if she attempted to
raise a baby or young child) was there any evidence of any threat of negative
practical consequence being made to her if she failed to obtain the abortion. The
abortion was performed by licensed medical professionals at a private clinic who
18were not in any way under the control of Defendants PE 3950, indeed, “Laura
made the doctor's appointment and arranged the logistical details,” and Laura and
Jesse drove to the appointment themselves. No one from the Church was present.
PE 3950-3951. The claim for “forced abortion” rests entirely on DeCrescenzo"s
role as a Sea Org member and minister, and her being persuaded to have an
abortion for the reasons identified above.
D. — Undisputed Facts Relevant to DeCrescenzo’s False
Imprisonment Claims
DeCrescenzo bases her claims for deprivation of liberty and false
‘imprisonment (Third and Fourth Causes of Action) upon her assignment to and
experience on the RPF. She also bases her claim for intentional infliction of emotional