12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477) wforman@scheperkim.com DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174) dscheper@scheperkim.com MARGARET E. DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353)  pdayton@scheperkim.com 800 W. Sixth Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656 Attorneys for Defendant Church of Scientology International

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

VALERIE HANEY, Plaintiff, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, and DAVID MISCAVIGE; and DOES 1-25, Defendants. CASE NO. 19STCV21210

 ssigned for All Purposes to:  Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr., Dept. 37

DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

[Filed Concurrently with: Objections to  Plaintiff’s Evidence Submitted in Opposition to  Motion to Compel Religious Arbitration; Supplemental Declaration of Lynn R. Farny; Supplemental Declaration of Gary S. Soter; and Proof of Service]

Dept.: 37 Date: January 30, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m.

RESERVATION NO. 523728976924

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/23/2020 06:19 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. Lara,Deputy Clerk

 

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

 2

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I.

 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................6

 

II.

 

REBUTTAL FACTS ..............................................................................................................6

 

III.

 

ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................7

 

A.

 

Validity and Arbitrability Must Be Determined by the Arbitrators. ..........................7

 

B.

 

The First Amendment Protects CSI’s Right to Require Religious Arbitration. .................................................................................................................9

 

1.

 

Plaintiff’s “Neutral Law” Argument Is A Strawman. ....................................9

 

2.

 

The Ministerial Exception Applies. .............................................................10

 

C.

 

The Agreements Are Not Unconscionable. ..............................................................11

 

D.

 

Plaintiff Has Not Proven Undue Influence, Coercion, or Duress. ...........................13

 

E.

 

Section 1281.2(c) Does Not Apply. .........................................................................15

 

F.

 

The Court Should Deny the Request to Conduct Discovery. ...................................15

 

IV.

 

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................15

 

 

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

 3

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Federal Cases

 

 Bowen v. Roy

, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) ...................................................................................................................... 9

 Brennan v. Opus Bank 

, 796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................... 8

 Employment Div. v. Smith

, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) ................................................................................................................ 9, 11

Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc.

,  No. 8:13-cv-220, 2018 WL 3439638 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 17, 2018) ........................................... 10, 12

Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Srvc. Org., Inc.

,  No. 8:13-cv-220, 2015 WL 10844160 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2015) ............................................. 12

Gen. Conf. of Evangelical Methodist Church v. Evangelical Methodist Church

, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Ga. 2011) ....................................................................................... 12

Gillette v. U.S.

, 401 U.S. 437 (1971) .................................................................................................................... 11

 Headley v. Church of Scientology Int 

., 687 F. 3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 13, 14

 Headley v. Church of Scientology Int’l.

,  No. 09-3986-DSF,

 

2010 WL 3157064 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010) ............................................... 10

 Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.

, 586 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 524 (Jan. 8, 2019) ................................................................................ 8, 9

 Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n

, 565 U.S. 171 (2012) .............................................................................................................. 10, 11

 Jimmy Swaggert Ministries v. Bd of Equalization

, 493 U.S. 378 (1990) ...................................................................................................................... 9

 Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n

, 485 U.S. 439 (1988) ...................................................................................................................... 9

 McClure v. Salvation Army

, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1972) ....................................................................................................... 11

 McDonald v. City of Chicago

, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) ...................................................................................................................... 9