Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/19/2020 03:12 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

1 WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477)
wforman@scheperkim.com
2 DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174)
dscheper@scheperkim.com
3 MARGARET E. DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353)
pdayton@scheperkim.com
4 JEFFREY L. STEINFELD (State Bar No. 294848)
jsteinfeld@scheperkim.com
5 800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
6 Telephone: (213) 613-4655
Facsimile: (213) 613-4656
7
Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology
8 International and Celebrity Centre International
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
9

10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
12
CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC CASE NO. 19STCV29458
BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE Assigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield,
13
BOBETTE RIALES; and JANE DOE #2, Dept. 57
14
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’s
15
v. AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
CELEBRITY CENTRE
16
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’S OPPOSITION TO
INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION PRO
17
TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF HAC VICE OF
SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE
18
INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE; (1) BRIAN D. KENT;
DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1-25, (2) GAETANO D’ANDREA;
19
(3) M. STEWART RYAN;
Defendants. (4) JEFFREY P. FRITZ;
20
(5) RICARDO MARTINEZ-CID;
(6) LEA BUCCIERO; AND
21
(7) MARCI HAMILTON
22
[Filed Concurrently with Request For Judicial
Notice; Declaration of William Forman]
23
Date: March 11, 2020
24
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 57
25
Complaint Filed: August 22, 2019
26
Trial Date: None Set
27

28

CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS

 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page

3 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
4 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................3
5 A. Applicants’ Numerous Representations In California ...............................................3
6 B. The Applications Fail To Comply With Rule 9.40 ....................................................5
7 C. Applicants' Misconduct In This Case .........................................................................5
8 D. Applicants’ Misconduct In The Haney Case..............................................................6
9 III. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................8
10 A. The Court Should Deny The Applications Because They Fail To Satisfy
The Requirements Of California Rule Of Court 9.40(d) ...........................................8
11
B. The Court Should Deny The Applications Because Applicants Have Made
12 Repeated Pro Hac Vice Appearances In Violation Of Rule 9.40(b) ........................10
13 C. The Court Should Deny The Applications Because Of Applicants’
Repeated Misconduct In This Matter And In The Haney Case ...............................12
14
D. The Court Should Not Permit The Out-Of-State Lawyers Who Have Not
15 Filed Pro Hac Vice Applications To Participate In This Lawsuit............................13
16 IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................14
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
i
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
Page
2

3 CASES

4 City Breeze, LLC v. Shahi,

2016 WL 6236422 ................................................................................................................. 6
5
Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.,
6 238 Cal. App. 4th 1251 (2015) ...................................................................................... 10, 11
7 Howard v. Superior Court,
52 Cal. App. 3d 722 (1975) ................................................................................................. 14
8
J.W. v. Superior Court,
9 17 Cal. App. 4th 958 (1993) ................................................................................................ 14
10 Kappel v. Bartlett,
200 Cal. App. 3d 1457 (1988) ............................................................................................. 12
11
Moe v. Anderson,
12 207 Cal. App. 4th 826 (2012) .......................................................................................... 3, 10
13 Sheller v. Superior Court,
158 Cal. App. 4th 1697 (2008) ...................................................................................... 10, 12
14
Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
15 155 Cal. App. 4th 736 (2007) .............................................................................................. 13
16
STATUTES
17
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22356 ...................................................................................................... 13
18
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125 ................................................................................................ 2, 8, 14
19
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6126(a) ................................................................................................... 14
20

21 RULES

22 California Rule of Court 3.110(b) ..................................................................................................... 8

23 California Rule of Court 9.40 ............................................................................................ 5, 8, 10, 12

24 California Rule of Court 9.40(a)(3)................................................................................................. 10

25 California Rule of Court 9.40(b) ........................................................................................... 1, 10, 12

26 California Rule of Court 9.40(d) ....................................................................................................... 2

27 California Rule of Court 9.40(d)(5) ...................................................................................... 2, 5, 8, 9

28
ii
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 California Rule of Court 9.40(f) ...................................................................................................... 12
1
California Rule of Court 9.47(c) ................................................................................................... 2, 8
2
California Rule of Court 9.47(e) ..................................................................................................... 12
3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
iii
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 Defendants Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and Celebrity Centre International

2 (“CC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby oppose the applications for admission pro hac vice

3 filed by out-of-state lawyers (1) Brian D. Kent, (2) Gaetano D’Andrea, and (3) M. Stewart Ryan of

4 the Laffey, Bucci & Kent, LLP firm in Pennsylvania; (4) Jeffrey P. Fritz of the Soloff & Zervanos,

5 P.C. firm in Pennsylvania; (5) Ricardo Martinez-Cid, and (6) Lea Bucciero of the Podhurst Orseck,

6 P.A. firm in Florida; and (7) Marci Hamilton in Pennsylvania, on behalf of Plaintiffs in the above-

7 entitled lawsuit (collectively, “Applicants” and the “Applications”).

8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

9 I. INTRODUCTION

10 Defendants recognize that applications for admission pro hac vice often present routine and

11 uncontroversial matters. However, there are times when opposition is justified, such as when an

12 application is unreasonable on its face, or when the conduct of the lawyers who seek a California

13 court’s permission to appear before it calls into question their fitness to practice in this state

14 without having to comply with the ethical and professional rules for admission to the California

15 Bar. This is one of those times.

16 Through the Applications, seven lawyers from three different law firms and one

17 organization seek to join California lawyers from yet another law firm to represent five Plaintiffs

18 in this lawsuit that arises out of a series of unrelated events and transactions and is, in reality, four

19 lawsuits (one plaintiff is married to another plaintiff) misjoined into a single case. All of the

20 Applicants filed another lawsuit entitled Haney v. Church of Scientology International, et al., Los

21 Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV21210 (the “Haney Case”) in this Court on June 18,

22 2019, against most of the defendants in this action. In effect then, Applicants have filed lawsuits

23 on behalf of five separate groups of plaintiffs in the span of two months and now seek permission

24 to appear in them all pursuant to a “pro hac vice” application that by its very definition is intended

25 to be used “for this occasion or particular purpose.”1 See Cal. R. Court 9.40(b) (providing that

26 “repeated appearances” is “cause for denial of an application”). To make matters worse, one of the

27

28 1
PRO HAC VICE, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
1
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 Applicants, Brian D. Kent, currently represents an additional seven plaintiffs in two cases in

2 northern California via pro hac vice admission. Therefore, Kent is seeking to represent 13

3 individual plaintiffs in four cases in California, all via pro hac vice admission.

4 The Applications also plainly fail to satisfy the basic requirements of California Rule of

5 Court 9.40, which governs pro hac vice applications. As an initial matter, the Applications are

6 untimely because Applicants filed them over four months after filing the Complaint (which falsely

7 stated on its caption page that the pro hac vice applications were “pending”), and have therefore

8 been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125 (“No person

9 shall practice law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the State Bar”); Cal. R.

10 Court 9.47(c) (providing that an out-of-state attorney must “promptly” seek authorization “after it

11 becomes possible to do so”). Each of the Applications violate Rule 9.40(d) because they fail to

12 disclose the name of previous case(s) in which the applicant sought pro hac vice admission, and in

13 most instances, also fail to name the court in which admission was sought. See Cal. R. Court

14 9.40(d)(5) (requiring that pro hac vice applications “must state” the “title of each court and cause

15 in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the

16 preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted”). In fact,

17 each of the Applications fails to disclose that the attorney was also seeking pro hac vice admission

18 in Haney at the same time. Brian Kent’s application strategically omits the name of multiple cases

19 in which he represents seven additional plaintiffs.

20 Applicants’ conduct further shows that they should not be admitted to practice before the

21 Court in this case. Before they filed this Complaint, Applicants embarked on a media blitz, which

22 included an appearance on a notorious anti-Scientology cable television show by one of the

23 lawyers and two of the Plaintiffs to announce and publicize the imminent filing of this lawsuit.

24 Applicants have misled this Court and another judge in this courthouse as to the status of their pro

25 hac vice applications, filed fraudulent proofs of service with the Court, and disobeyed at least two

26 Court Orders directing service of papers. They have misused the processes of this Court to a point

27 where their conduct strongly suggests that more is to come.

28
2
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2 A. Applicants’ Numerous Representations In California

On August 22, 2019, Applicants filed the Complaint in this action on behalf of five
3
individual plaintiffs – Chrissie Bixler, Cedric Bixler-Zavala, Bobette Riales, Jane Doe #1, and
4
Jane Doe #2. The five plaintiffs are unrelated except for Plaintiffs Chrissie Bixler and Cedric
5
Bixler-Zavala who are husband and wife. The Complaint alleges distinct sets of claims on behalf
6
of four groups of plaintiffs (the Bixlers, and then each of the other three plaintiffs) arising out of a
7
series of unrelated events and transactions. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 86, 96, 111 (alleging individuals
8
loitered and/or surveilled outside Plaintiff Bixler’s home), ¶ 156 (alleging Plaintiff Jane Doe #1
9
was followed in a Best Buy store), ¶¶ 191, 193, 198 (alleging individuals loitered and
10
photographed outside Plaintiff Riales’ home); ¶ 217 (alleging Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 was harassed
11
at a grocery store).) Each Plaintiff's claims are premised on different acts that occurred at different
12
times and in different locations from the other Plaintiffs’ claims, they do not arise from the same
13
transaction or series of transactions. (See id.) Therefore, the Complaint is, in reality, four lawsuits
14
misjoined into a single case. See Moe v. Anderson, 207 Cal. App. 4th 826, 833-35 (2012)
15
(affirming demurrer based upon misjoinder given that there was no single transaction or related
16
series of transactions where two plaintiffs alleged separate and distinct sexual assaults at different
17
times against the same doctor defendant).
18
Eleven lawyers appear on the caption of this lawsuit. Nine are out-of-state lawyers from
19
three different law firms and one organization. 2 At the time Applicants filed the Complaint, the
20
Complaint stated that each of these out-of-state lawyers had the status of "Pro Hac Vice
21
Admission Pending.” (Compl., caption.) However, Applicants did not have any pro hac vice
22
applications “pending,” and only filed applications for seven of the nine lawyers on January 10,
23
2020, over four months after filing the Complaint. (Compare Compl. with Applications.)
24
As detailed below, on June 18, 2019—two months before filing the Complaint in this
25

26 2
Applicant Marci Hamilton is CEO of ChildUSA, which lobbies state legislatures to expand
27 statutes of limitations and then offers “survivor tool kits” for persons to sue under revised statutes
of limitations. https://www.childusa.org/sol. Along with Hamilton, two additional Applicants –
28 Kent and Fritz – are on the Board of ChildUSA. https://www.childusa.org/board.
3
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 action—Applicants also filed a lawsuit on behalf of a different plaintiff, Valerie Haney, in Haney

2 v. Church of Scientology International, et al., Case No. 19STCV21210 (“Haney Case”).

3 (Declaration of William H. Forman in support of Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) and

4 Opposition to Applications For Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Forman Decl.”), ¶ 9, Ex. 1.) All eleven

5 lawyers who filed this case also appear on the operative Haney Complaint, with each out-of-state

6 lawyer listed as having “Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending.” (Id. ¶ 9, Ex. 2.)3 In effect then,

7 Applicants have filed lawsuits in California on behalf of six plaintiffs in the span of two months

8 and have sought permission to appear in them all pursuant to a “pro hac vice” application that by

9 its very definition is intended to be used “for the purpose of conducting a particular case.” See

10 Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), supra.

11 One of Plaintiffs’ out-of-state lawyers, Brian D. Kent, has also appeared pro hac vice on

12 behalf of an additional seven individual plaintiffs in cases unrelated to this matter or the Haney

13 Case. (Forman Decl. Exs. 8-11.) Specifically, on July 24, 2017, Kent applied to appear pro hac

14 vice on behalf of an individual plaintiff in Doe v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC et. al., Case

15 No. 34-2017-00210331 (“Massage Envy 1”). (Id. Ex. 8 (application) and Ex. 9 (order granting

16 application).) About a year later, on December 14, 2018, Kent applied in a different case to

17 appear on behalf of six individual plaintiffs with unique claims in Does 1-6 v. Massage Envy

18 Franchising, LLC, et. al., Case No. 18CIV03706 (“Massage Envy 2”). (Id. Ex. 10 (application)

19 and Ex. 11 (order granting application).) 4 In both Massage Envy cases, Robert W. Thompson is

20 local counsel, as he is here. (Id. Exs. 8, 10.)

21 In sum, in approximately the last two years, Kent has sought to represent 13 plaintiffs in

22 California courts via pro hac vice status (seven in the Massage Envy cases, one in Haney, and five

23
3
24 Despite all nine out-of-state lawyers being listed as “Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending” only
four of the lawyers have actually filed pro hac vice applications in Haney. (Forman Decl. ¶ 9,
25 Exs. 2-6; RJN.) The Court in Haney never ruled on the pro hac vice applications because it first
granted defendants’ motions to compel religious arbitration and stayed the action. (Forman Decl.
26 Ex. 7; RJN.)
4
27 Massage Envy 2 was originally filed on behalf of five individual plaintiffs. On August 20, 2018,
a sixth individual plaintiff was added in the first amended complaint. (Forman Decl. Ex. 12.)
28 Kent is listed on the first amended complaint as one of the “Attorneys for Plaintiffs.” (Id.)
4
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 in this action.) None of those actions are class actions or mass actions. The remainder of the

2 Applicants have sought to represent at least six plaintiffs across two actions (this action and

3 Haney), each plaintiff with distinct and individual claims.

4 B. The Applications Fail To Comply With Rule 9.40

Applicants filed the Applications on January 10, 2020, over four months after filing the
5
Complaint, but provide no reason for the lengthy delay. Not only did Applicants delay filing the
6
Applications, but the Applications also fail to meet the basic requirements of California Rule of
7
Court 9.40. Rule of Court 9.40(d) requires that an applicant “must state” the “title of each court
8
and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this
9
state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted.”
10
Cal. R. Court 9.40(d)(5) (emphasis added). In violation of this Rule, each of the Applications fail
11
to list the name and date of any other application, including the pending Haney applications. As
12
noted above, all nine out-of-state lawyers in this action appear on the Haney Complaint as “Pro
13
Hac Vice Admission Pending,” and four of them filed applications with the Haney court. Yet, not
14
a single Application complies with Rule 9.40(d)(5) and states the title of Haney case, the court it is
15
in, and the date the Haney applications were filed. Furthermore, in his Application to this Court,
16
Kent failed to disclose the title of each of the Massage Envy cases, and the date of each Massage
17
Envy application. Because Applicants failed to comply with Rule 9.40(d)(5), Defendants were
18
forced to request such information from the State Bar of California, and learned the details of the
19
other representations. (Forman Decl. ¶ 5.)
20
C. Applicants' Misconduct In This Case
21
As described in detail in Defendants’ pending Motion To Quash, Applicants have
22
repeatedly violated California’s rules and procedures including through defective and fraudulent
23
service of the Complaint.5 For example, Applicants hired known fraudster, Robert Hall, to
24

25 5
Defendants hereby incorporate their Motion to Quash ("MTQ”) to be heard at the same time as
26 the Pro Hac Vice Applications, and MTQ supporting documents Request For Judicial Notice
(“MTQ RJN”) and Declarations of William Forman ("MTQ Forman Decl.”), Lynn R. Farny
27 (“MTQ Farny Decl.”), Margaret Marmolejo (“MTQ Marmolejo Decl.”), and Lewis Miranda
(“MTQ Miranda Decl.”) filed on November 18, 2019. Citations to these supporting documents
28
5
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 purportedly effectuate service of the Complaint and other documents. 6 However, Mr. Hall did not

2 serve the Complaint, and instead submitted fraudulent proofs of service that falsely claimed that

3 he left the documents with “‘John Doe’ Front Desk Agent,” and “I [Robert Hall] thereafter mailed

4 (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served at the place

5 where copies were left” stating “a declaration of mailing is attached.” (MTQ Forman Decl. Exs.

6 1-3, ¶ 5b(4).) Defendants never received any such mailing. (MTQ Farny Decl. ¶ 4; see MTQ

7 at 3-4.) Most egregiously, Hall swore in a declaration of due diligence that he attempted to serve

8 an individual defendant at CSI’s offices in Hollywood on October 7, 10, 15, and 17. (MTQ

9 Forman Decl. Ex. 5, ¶ 4.) However, security camera footage from those days shows that Hall

10 never attempted such service. (MTQ Farny Decl. ¶ 11; see MTQ at 4-5.)

11 Applicants also violated court orders by failing to appropriately serve other documents.

12 On September 9, 2019, the Court issued an order determining the case not to be complex and

13 transferring the matter to Department 1 for reassignment. (Forman Decl. Ex. 13.) Plaintiffs were

14 ordered to serve a copy of the order on all parties “forthwith” being that there was a limited time

15 for any party to contest the non-complex designation. (Id.) Applicants failed to comply with the

16 order. (Id. ¶ 7; MTQ Marmolejo Decl. ¶ 2; MTQ Farny Decl. ¶ 4.) On September 16, 2019,

17 Department 1 issued an order reassigning the case to an independent calendar court. (Forman

18 Decl. Ex. 14.) Plaintiffs were once again ordered to give notice. (Id.) Applicants again failed to

19 comply with that order. (Id. ¶ 8; Marmolejo Decl. ¶ 2; Farny Decl. ¶ 4.) Indeed, Applicants did

20 not even bother to include these orders in the papers they attempted to defectively serve through

21 Mr. Hall, (Miranda Decl. Exs. A-E), not that such “service” would have been sufficient if they had

22 included them.

23 D. Applicants’ Misconduct In The Haney Case

As with the Complaint in this case, the original and amended complaints in the Haney
24
Case falsely represented “Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending” for all out-of-state lawyers appearing
25

26 are signified by “MTQ.”

6
27 City Breeze, LLC v. Shahi, 2016 WL 6236422, Case No. B259117, at * 1, 4 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct.
25, 2016) (holding that examination of Mr. Hall showed that he “was evasive and not credible”
28 regarding his claim that he had performed service).
6
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 on the captions. (Forman Decl. Exs. 1-2.) Yet, when the original complaint was filed, no pro hac

2 vice applications had been filed for any of the out-of-state lawyers. (Compare id. Ex. 1 complaint

3 filed on 6/18/2019 with id. Exs. 3-6 pro hac vice applications filed on 9/30/2019).) When the

4 amended complaint was filed, pro hac vice applications were filed for only four of the nine out-of-

5 state attorneys appearing on the caption page. (Id. Exs. 2-6 (amended complaint and four pro hac

6 vice applications filed on 9/30/2019).) The pro hac vice applications in Haney were never heard

7 because Judge Burdge first granted defendants' motions to compel arbitration. However,

8 Applicant Ryan attempted to “specially appear” at a Haney hearing, and Applicant Hamilton did

9 appear by court-call at the same hearing, despite having no approval to do so. (Forman Decl. ¶ 10.)

10 Moreover, in the Haney Case—as in this case—Applicants repeatedly violated California’s

11 rules and procedures. On October 25, 2019, the court referred the Haney Case for review and

12 reassignment because Applicants “erroneously filed [it] as a Personal Injury (“PI”) matter.”

13 (Forman Decl. Ex. 15.) The Court vacated all future hearings, including trial, and ordered Plaintiff

14 “to give notice to all interested parties forthwith.” (Id.) Despite this order, no notice was given.

15 (Id. ¶ 16; MTQ Marmolejo Decl. ¶ 2; MTQ Farny Decl. ¶ 4.) In addition to filing the case in the

16 incorrect court, Applicants improperly filed the initial Haney Complaint under a pseudonym.

17 (Forman Decl. Ex. 1 (Haney initial Complaint).) The initial complaint was brought by “Jane Doe”

18 and stated that the plaintiff’s “name and address are not contained in this Complaint so as to

19 protect her privacy and identity as she incurred injuries and damages of a sensitive nature as a

20 result of the negligent and intentional acts of Defendants outlined below.” (Id. ¶ 1.) This

21 allegation was apparently for shock value only – given that Ms. Haney’s actual name is identified

22 in the complaint itself. (Id. ¶ 108, fn. 22.) The initial complaint even includes a link to a publicly-

23 accessible video prominently featuring Ms. Haney using her own name and discussing her former

24 affiliation with CSI. (Id.) Ms. Haney has appeared on television to publicize her allegations. (Id.

25 ¶ 69.) After the publicity blitz subsided, on September 30, 2019, Ms. Haney filed an amended

26 complaint, this time using her real name. (Forman Decl. Ex. 2.) Applicants failed to serve any of

27 the Defendants with the initial complaint in the Haney Case, even though they filed in June and

28
7
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 California Rule of Court 3.110(b) requires that complaints be served on all defendants within 60

2 days of filing. (Forman Decl. ¶ 9; MTQ Marmolejo Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; MTQ Farny Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5; MTQ

3 Miranda Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A-E.) Applicants ensured that the Haney Complaint was provided to

4 the media before filing, as unfiled copies of the complaint appeared in the press. (MTQ Forman

5 Decl. Ex. 25.)

6 III. ARGUMENT

7 A. The Court Should Deny The Applications Because They Fail To Satisfy The
Requirements Of California Rule Of Court 9.40(d)
8
As an initial matter, this Court should deny the Applications because they fail to satisfy the
9
basic requirements of California Rule of Court 9.40, which governs pro hac vice admissions.
10
Specifically, all of the Applications fail to comply with Rule 9.40(d)(5), which provides that every
11
application “must state” the “title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an
12
application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of
13
each application, and whether or not it was granted.” Cal. R. Court 9.40(d)(5).
14
First, all of the Applications are untimely because they were filed over four months after
15
the Complaint. See Cal. R. Court 9.47(c) (providing that an out-of-state attorney must “promptly”
16
seek authorization “after it becomes possible to do so”). Applicants showed that they understood
17
their Applications were to be filed “promptly” as they stated on the caption of the Complaint that
18
their pro hac vice admission was “pending.” Due to the over four-month delay in filing the
19
Applications, Applicants have been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See id; Cal. Bus.
20
& Prof. Code § 6125 (“No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an
21
active licensee of the State Bar.”). For instance, on December 12, 2019, Applicants Fritz,
22
Hamilton, Kent, and Ryan participated in a meet and confer telephone call regarding Defendants'
23
demurrers and motions to compel arbitration. (Forman Decl. ¶ 4.) While the delay and
24
unauthorized practice of law alone warrants the Court denying the Applications, the Applications
25
themselves are defective.
26
The Applications of Fritz, Hamilton, Kent, Martinez-Cid, and Ryan all fail to satisfy Rule
27
9.40(d)(5) because they each indicate that the Applicant has filed at least one other pro hac vice
28
8
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 application in California in the last two years, but the Applications all fail to disclose, at a

2 minimum, the name of the case, the name of the court, and the date the application was filed. (See

3 the Applications at Declarations and Verifications ¶ 5.)

4 Ryan, Hamilton, and Martinez-Cid’s Applications merely state that “I filed one other pro

5 hac vice application in California in the preceding two years.” (Id.) Fritz’s Application similarly

6 vaguely states “I have filed pro hac vice motions in the States of California and New York in the

7 preceding two years.” (Fritz Application at Declaration and Verification ¶ 5 (emphasis added).)

8 And D’Andrea’s Application states “I have filed motions in the States of California . . . in the

9 preceding two years to appear pro hac vice. (D’Andrea Application at Declaration and

10 Verification ¶ 5.) Therefore, these Applications fail three of Rule 9.40(d)(5)’s requirements,

11 specifically that the application state the name of the court, the name of the case, and the date the

12 prior application was filed. Cal. R. Court 9.40(d)(5) (requiring that the application “must state”

13 the “title” of “each court and cause in which the applicant” filed an application and “the date of

14 each application”).

15 Similarly, Kent’s Application only provides that “I have been admitted pro hac vice in the

16 States of California . . . in the preceding two years. In California, I have been admitted once in

17 Sacramento County Superior Court and once in San Mateo County Superior Court.” (Kent

18 Application at Declaration and Verification ¶ 5.) Therefore, as to the actions in Sacramento and

19 San Mateo Counties, Kent’s Application fails to satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(5) because it does not state

20 the names of the cases and the dates the applications were filed.

21 Because Kent failed to disclose this information on his Application, CSI and CC were

22 forced to request the information from the State Bar of California. (Forman Decl. ¶ 5.) As

23 detailed below, Kent failed to disclose that he has repeatedly represented numerous plaintiffs in

24 California, now totaling at least 13 plaintiffs in approximately the last two years.

25 Kent’s Application also fails to satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(5) because it completely omits any

26 reference to Kent’s pro hac vice application in Haney, which Kent filed on September 30, 2019.

27 Neither of the references in Kent’s application could be referring to his Haney application because

28
9
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 Kent filed Haney in Los Angeles Superior Court, and makes no mention of this in his Application

2 in this case. In short, Kent failed to disclose that he has filed four pro hac vice applications in the

3 last two years. All of the Applications fail to satisfy the basic requirements of Rule 9.40(d)(5).

4 Therefore, this Court must deny the Applications.7

5 B. The Court Should Deny The Applications Because Applicants Have Made
Repeated Pro Hac Vice Appearances In Violation Of Rule 9.40(b)
6
This Court should deny the Applications because Applicants are improperly attempting to
7
use pro hac vice admission to repeatedly represent numerous plaintiffs in California without being
8
admitted to the California Bar. Whether a California court should permit an out-of-state attorney
9
to appear in a case pro hac vice is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
10
See Sheller v. Superior Court, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1697, 1712 (2008); Cal. R. Court 9.40(a). Under
11
California Rule of Court 9.40(a)(3), “[n]o person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac
12
vice under this rule if the person is . . . [r]egularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or
13
other activities in the State of California.” Cal. R. Court 9.40. California Rule of Court 9.40(b),
14
titled “Repeated appearances as a cause for denial,” provides that “[a]bsent special circumstances,
15
repeated appearances by any person under this rule is cause for denial of an application.” Cal. R.
16
Court 9.40(b); see Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 238 Cal. App. 4th 1251, 1266 (2015)
17
(pro hac vice application denied under Rule 9.40(b) where out-of-state counsel had “appeared 12
18
times in California state courts”).
19
Applicants should not be allowed to exploit the pro hac vice rules to appear in what are, in
20
effect, five separate lawsuits, including the Haney Case. A simple review of the Complaint
21
reveals that Applicants have misjoined parties, alleging causes of action based upon four
22
independent series of alleged events and transactions. See Moe, supra, 207 Cal. App. 4th at 833-
23
35. Principally, the events giving rise to each Plaintiff’s claims occurred independently and at
24
their separate homes. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 85-88, 94, 100, 109-110, 112 (allegations regarding
25
7
Lea P. Bucciero’s Application states that she has “not filed any other pro hac vice applications in
26
the preceding two years.” (Bucciero Verification and Declaration ¶ 5.) While this may
27 technically be true, Bucciero has appeared on the caption in Haney and falsely listed her status in
that case as “Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending.” (Forman Decl. Ex. 2.) Therefore, she still failed
28 to disclose to the Court that she improperly appeared in Haney.
10
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 events occurring at Plaintiff Bixler’s home); id. ¶¶ 160, 161, 162, 170-172 (allegations regarding

2 events occurring at Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s home); id. ¶¶ 192, 195 (allegations regarding events

3 occurring at Plaintiff Riales’ home); id. ¶ 217 (alleging Plaintiff Jane Doe # 2 was harassed at a

4 grocery store).) Therefore, this Court should deny the Applications pursuant to Rule 9.40(b), as

5 each lawyer has attempted to appear on behalf of five different groups of plaintiffs (four in this

6 case, and one in Haney) with claims that are distinct and independent of each other via pro hac

7 vice admission.8

8 This is especially true as to Brian Kent who has filed actions on behalf of 13 plaintiffs in

9 numerous cases, all via pro hac vice status. See Golba, 238 Cal. App. 4th at 1266 (affirming the

10 trial court’s denial of a pro hac vice application pursuant to Rule 9.40(b) where the attorney had

11 “appeared 12 times in California state courts”). Specifically, on August 23, 2017, the Superior

12 Court of Sacramento admitted Kent pro hac vice to represent Jane Doe in Massage Envy 1.

13 (Forman Decl. Ex. 9.) A year later, while Massage Envy 1 was still active, the Superior Court of

14 San Mateo admitted Kent pro hac vice on behalf of six plaintiffs in Massage Envy 2. (Id. Ex. 11.)

15 Less than a year after being admitted in Massage Envy 2, Kent filed the Haney case in Los

16 Angeles Superior Court, and sought admission pro hac vice a few months later. (Id. Exs. 1, 3.)

17 Kent’s application in the Haney Case, which he failed to disclose on his Application in this case,

18 was pending when he filed his Application.9 (Compare Forman Decl. Ex. 3 with Kent's

19 Application).

20
8
21 Martinez-Cid’s Haney pro hac vice application discloses that he was admitted to practice before
this Court in 2016, bringing his total recent California appearances to at least three cases on behalf
22 of at least six individuals with separate claims. (Forman Decl. Ex. 5 at Declaration and
Verification ¶ 3.) Martinez-Cid’s Application in this case does not list his 2016 admission to this
23 Court. (See Martinez-Cid’s Verification and Declaration at ¶ 3.) In addition, Martinez-Cid

24 appeared in another case pro hac vice in 2010. (Forman Decl. Ex. 16 at 1-2.) Marci Hamilton
also appeared in two additional California cases in 2004. (Forman Decl. Ex. 17 at 1-2.)
25 9 Kent’s Haney application, like his application in this case, failed to disclose the Massage Envy
cases. (Forman Decl. Ex. 3.) Kent’s Haney application also failed to disclose that he filed this
26
action and is seeking admission pro hac vice here. (Id.) Therefore, it seems that Kent hoped to
27 obtain pro hac vice admission in both this case and the Haney Case by failing to disclose the other
case to each court. At least for now, that plan is on hold as Haney was stayed after Dept. 37
28 granted Defendants’ motion to compel religious arbitration. (Id. Ex. 7.)
11
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 Kent is attempting to represent at least 13 separate plaintiffs via pro hac vice applications,

2 which alone should be “cause for denial of [his] application.” See Cal R. Court 9.40(b).

3 Therefore, this Court should deny Kent’s Application pursuant to Rule 9.40(b).

4 C. The Court Should Deny The Applications Because Of Applicants’ Repeated

Misconduct In This Matter And In The Haney Case
5
While the Applicants' failure to satisfy Rule 9.40 is sufficient reason alone to deny them,
6
the Court should also deny the Applications because of Applicants’ violations of court rules.
7
California law makes clear that pro hac vice admission may be denied where the circumstances
8
reflect that the attorney is involved in disrupting the “orderly processes of justice” under the
9
circumstances of a particular case. See Sheller, 158 Cal. App. 4th at 1713. “An attorney
10
appearing pro hac vice submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state with respect to the law
11
of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of
12
California.” Id. at 1717. Counsel appearing pro hac vice must “familiarize himself or herself and
13
comply with the standards of professional conduct required of licensees of the State Bar of
14
California and will be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar with respect to any of
15
his or her acts occurring in the course of such appearance.” Cal. R. Court 9.40(f). Likewise,
16
counsel temporarily practicing law in California prior to pro hac vice admission are also subject to
17
the “laws of the State of California relating to the practice of law, the State Bar Rules of
18
Professional Conduct, the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California, and [the California
19
Rules of Court].” Cal. R. Court 9.47(e).
20
As described above and at length in Defendants’ Motion to Quash, this case involves
21
fraudulent service attempts and false sworn declarations that constitute a fraud on the Court and an
22
abuse of process. See Kappel v. Bartlett, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1457, 1464 (1988) (holding filing a
23
false declaration of service is an abuse of process). “Chaos would result if the legal community
24
could not depend on the truthfulness of declarations of service of process. Public policy requires
25
that it be regarded as serious, with consequences sufficiently adverse to act as deterrence.” Id.
26
The Proofs of Service in this case were riddled with lies, namely the false declarations of mailing
27
and false service attempts. Applicants cannot escape the consequences of the fraudulent acts of
28
12
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 their process server. Vicarious liability for an individual process server’s misdeeds is legislatively

2 mandated. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22356. Moreover, Applicants are responsible for the

3 actions of those they hire to work on their behalf. See Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,

4 155 Cal. App. 4th 736, 769 (2007). “A contrary rule would permit an employer to reap the

5 benefits of its employee’s misconduct simply by claiming it had instructed the employee only to

6 engage in lawful conduct.” Id. at 769 (affirming terminating sanction on account of misconduct of

7 hired investigator).

8 Furthermore, Applicants’ misconduct has not been limited to the fraudulent service. In

9 addition to the fact that not one of the five defendants in this case were properly or honestly

10 served, Applicants have serially and repeatedly abused this Court’s processes by: (1) failing to

11 comply with Court orders (plural) in this and the Haney cases; (2) misusing the “Doe” pseudonym

12 in the Haney Case when Ms. Haney’s name and identity were disclosed in the same complaint and

13 while Ms. Haney aired her claimed grievance openly on cable television (Forman Decl. Ex. 1);

14 (3) failing to even attempt to serve the complaint in this action and in Haney, while propagating

15 the complaints through the media (id. ¶ 9); (4) making false statements in pleadings that pro hac

16 vice applications are “pending” when they are not (id. Ex. 1; Compl., caption); (5) failing to

17 comply with Rule 9.40 with respect to the Applications (as described above); (6) failing to

18 disclose the Haney pro hac vice applications on the Applications in this case; (7) Applicants

19 Hamilton and Ryan appearing at the Haney hearing on the motions to compel arbitration (Forman

20 Decl. ¶ 10); and (8) misjoining Plaintiffs in this case, thus making it appear that Applicants are

21 seeking to appear in “only” one case, when this is in fact four separate actions, artfully pled as one

22 (thus also depriving this Court of filing fees for multiple cases).

23 Simply put, Applicants have repeatedly flouted California’s rules and procedures and court

24 orders. This alone warrants denial of pro hac vice admission. This Court should enter an order

25 striking their appearance and refusing to admit them pro hac vice.

26 D. The Court Should Not Permit The Out-Of-State Lawyers Who Have Not Filed
Pro Hac Vice Applications To Participate In This Lawsuit
27
The Court should not permit Helen L. Fitzpatrick and Lauren Stram, out-of-state lawyers
28
13
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 1 who have not filed pro hace vice applications, to participate in this case. The practice of law in

2 California is restricted to lawyers who are active members of the California State Bar. See Cal.

3 Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125. Under this rule, “[n]o person shall practice law [for another] in this

4 State unless he is an active member of the state bar.” J.W. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. App. 4th

5 958, 965 (1993) (second alteration in original). The prohibition against unauthorized practice of

6 law is designed to assure the competency of those performing legal services. See Howard v.

7 Superior Court, 52 Cal. App. 3d 722, 726 (1975). “Any person . . . holding himself or herself out

8 as . . . entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active licensee of the State

9 Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time

10 of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor. . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6126(a).

11 Here, the Complaint reflects the appearances of nine out-of-state lawyers, even though

12 none of them are admitted to practice in California, and only seven pro hac vice applications have

13 been filed. (Compare Compl., caption, with Applications.) The Complaint does not display a

14 California bar number for Fitzpatrick and Stram who appear on the caption of the Complaint but

15 have not sought pro hac vice admission. (Compl., caption.) The State Bar of California website

16 does not list them as members. (Forman Decl. ¶ 6.)

17 The law is clear. Since Fitzpatrick and Stram are not admitted to practice in this State, and

18 they have apparently taken no steps to be admitted pro hac vice (which should be rejected if they

19 do so belatedly for the reasons set forth herein), they may not participate in these proceedings.

20 CSI and CC therefore object to their participation and respectfully submit that the Court should

21 issue an order disqualifying Helen L. Fitzpatrick and Lauren Stram of the Laffey, Bucci & Kent,

22 LLP firm in Pennsylvania from further participating in this lawsuit.

23 IV. CONCLUSION

24 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Applicants’

25 Pro Hac Vice Applications.

26

27

28
14
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 DATED: February 19, 2020 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
1
WILLIAM H. FORMAN
2 DAVID C. SCHEPER
MARGARET E. DAYTON
3 JEFFREY L. STEINFELD
4

5 By: /s/ William Forman

William H. Forman
6 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology
International and Celebrity Centre International
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
15
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 PROOF OF SERVICE
1
Chrissie Carnell Bixler v. Church of Scientology International
2 LASC Case No. 19STCV29458
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

4 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 800 West
5 Sixth Street, 18th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2701.

6 On February 19, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’s AND CHURCH OF
7 SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL’S OPPOSITION TO
APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF: (1) BRIAN D. KENT; (2)
8 AETANO D’ANDREA; (3) M. STEWART RYAN; (4) JEFFREY P. FRITZ; (5) RICARDO
MARTINEZ-CID; (6) LEA BUCCIERO; AND (7) MARCI HAMILTON
9
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
10
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
11
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
12 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
13 Scheper Kim & Harris 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
14 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully
prepaid.
15
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person listed in the
16 Service List by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal, LLC, through
the user interface at www.onelegal.com.
17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
18 foregoing is true and correct.

19 Executed on February 19, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.

20

21 /s/ Rocio Ramirez

22 Rocio Ramirez

23

24

25

26

27

28
16
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 SERVICE LIST
1 Chrissie Carnell Bixler v. Church of Scientology International
LASC Case No. 19STCV29458
2
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHRISSIE
3 Robert W. Thompson CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC BIXLER-
Kristen A. Vierhaus ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE
4 THOMPSON LAW OFFICES BOBETTE RIALES and JANE DOE #2
700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
5 Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: 650-513-6111
6 Facsimile: 650-513-6071
Emails: bobby@tlopc.com
7 kris@tlopc.com

8 ATTORNEYS NOT ADMITTED TO THE

CALIFORNIA BAR – SERVED VIA MAIL
9
Brian D. Kent
10 Gaetano D’Andrea
M. Stewart Ryan
11 Helen L. Fitzpatrick
Lauren Stram
12 LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT LLP
1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
13 Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215-399-9255
14 Facsimile: 215-241-8700

15 Jeffrey P. Fritz
SOLOFF & ZERVANOS P C
th
16 1525 Locust Street, 8 Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
17 Telephone: 215-732-2260
Facsimile: 215-732-2289
18
Marci Hamilton
19 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Fox-Fels Building
20 3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
21 Telephone: 215-353-8984
Facsimile: 215-493-1094
22
Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid
23 Lea P. Bucciero
PODHURST ORSECK P A
24 One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
25 Telephone: 305-358-2800
Facsimile: 301-358-2382
26

27

28
17
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
 SERVED VIA E-SERVICE Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS
1 Robert E. Mangels TECHNOLOGY CENTER
Matthew D. Hinks
2 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER
& MITCHELL LLP
3 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
4 Telephone: 310-203-8080
Facsimile: 310-203-0567
5 Emails: rmangels@jmbm.com
mhinks@jmbm.com
6

7 SERVED VIA E-SERVICE Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendant

Jeffrey K. Riffer DAVID MISCAVIGE
8 ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP
9 10345 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
10 Telephone: 310-746-4400
Facsimile: 310-746-4499
11 Email: jriffer@elkinskalt.com

12
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Masterson
13 Andrew B. Brettler
LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL
14 CORPORATION
2049 Century Park E 2400
15 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-556-3501
16 Facsimile: 310-556-3615
Email: abrettler@lavelysinger.com
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
18
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS