12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

 NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION

67656582v1

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291)

rmangels@jmbm.com

MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750)

mhinks@jmbm.com

1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067-4308 Telephone: (310) 203-8080 Facsimile: (310) 203-0567 Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER 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 [Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr., Department 37]

DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION

Date: January 30, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 37 Action filed: June 18, 2019 Trial date: Not yet set

RESERVATION ID: 788791955057

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/23/2020 05:39 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk

 

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282

 NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION

67656582v1

Defendant Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) filed a Motion to Compel Religious Arbitration (the “Motion”) and Joinder in Motion of Defendant Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) (the “Joinder”) on December 20, 2019, and noticed the Motion and Joinder for hearing on January 30, 2020. As reflected by the proof of service filed by RTC, RTC served the Motion and Joinder on eight lawyers representing Plaintiff at three different law firms and one university. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel signed a joint stipulation, that was filed with the Court and reduced to an Order, acknowledging that “on December 20, 2019, RTC filed its Motion to Compel Religious Arbitration.” The stipulation recited that the contents of the RTC and CSI Motions “overlapped,” showing that Plaintiff’s counsel had read RTC’s Motion. Plaintiff was required to file an opposition to the Motion and Joinder, if any, by January 16, 2020— 

i.e.

, nine court days before the noticed hearing date.

See

 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1005(b). Despite having knowledge of the Motion, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Motion on January 16, 2020, or at all. On Monday, January 20, 2020 (a Court holiday), Plaintiff filed (late) an Opposition to the Joinder and served it on RTC on January 21, 2020. However, Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion. Given the lack of opposition to the Motion, RTC respectfully submits that its Motion should  be granted and this action should be ordered to religious arbitration for all the reasons set forth in the Motion.

See Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm

, 135 Cal. App. 4th 654, 661 (2006) (motion  properly granted where no opposition filed and motion establishes grounds for relief sought). DATED: January 23, 2020 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP ROBERT E. MANGELS MATTHEW D. HINKS By: MATTHEW D. HINKS Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER

 

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283

 NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION

67656582v1

PROOF OF SERVICE Haney v. Church of Scientology, et al. 19STCV21210 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4308. On January 23, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as

DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION

as follows:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY:

 I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or package  provided by the overnight service carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight service carrier or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents.

BY MAIL:

 I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the  persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with  postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 23, 2020 at Los Angeles, California. Belinda Curtis