12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’
PRO HACE VICE
APPLICATIONS
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 JEFFREY L. STEINFELD (State Bar No. 294848) jsteinfeld@scheperkim.com 800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2701 Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology International and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE BOBETTE RIALES; and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE; DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1-25, Defendants. CASE NO. 19STCV29458
ssigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield, Dept. 57
DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION
PRO
HAC VICE
OF (1) BRIAN D. KENT; (2) GAETANO D’ANDREA; (3) M. STEWART RYAN; (4) JEFFREY P. FRITZ; AND (5) MARCI HAMILTON
Date: April 22, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 57 Complaint Filed: August 22, 2019 Trial Date: Not yet set
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/09/2020 09:49 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Panganiban,Deputy Clerk
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’
PRO HACE VICE
APPLICATIONS
Defendants Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and Celebrity Centre International (“CC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit this supplemental opposition to the applications for admission
pro hac vice
filed by out-of-state lawyers (1) Brian D. Kent, (2) Gaetano D’Andrea, (3) M. Stewart Ryan, (4) Jeffrey P. Fritz, and (5) Marci Hamilton on behalf of Plaintiffs in the above-entitled lawsuit (collectively, “Applicants” and the “Applications”). As this Court recognized in its March 11, 2020 tentative order, Applicants’
pro hac vice
Applications were defective because they failed to satisfy California Rule of Court 9.40’s requirements. (
See
3/11/2020 Order at 2-3.) Rather than
deny the Applications, this Court gave Applicants the opportunity to file supplemental declarations to satisfy Rule 9.40’s requirements for admission
pro hac vice.
Despite filing such declarations, Applicants still fail to satisfy Rule 9.40.
1. Brian D. Kent
– Kent’s Application remains deficient for multiple reasons. First, neither the original Application nor Kent’s supplemental declaration contain his residential address as required by Rule 9.40(d)(1).
See
Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(1) (“application
must
state: (1) The applicant’s
residence
and office address”) (emphasis added). Second, Kent’s Application does not satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(2)’s requirement that the applicant list the “the
courts
to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the
dates
of admission.” Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2) (emphasis added). Kent’s Application does not list any court to which he is admitted practice, and does not list the date, or even the month of such admission. Rather, Kent’s Application only identifies States in which he is admitted to practice and the year of his admission. Because Kent failed to list the specific courts to which he is admitted to practice, and the specific dates of his admission to those courts, his Application fails to satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(2).
2. Gaetano D’Andrea
– This Court should deny D’Andrea’s Application because it contains contradictory sworn statements and fails to comply with Rule 9.40. The two sworn declarations D’Andrea submitted to this Court contradict each other. D’Andrea’s December 17, 2019 sworn declaration states that he has “filed motions in the States of California, West Virginia, New York, and New Jersey in the preceding two years to appear
pro hac vice
.” (12/17/2019 D’Andrea Decl. ¶ 5.) However, his March 12, 2020 declaration swears that he “filed no other
pro hac vice
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
3
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’
PRO HACE VICE
APPLICATIONS
applications in California in the preceding two years.” (3/12/2020 D’Andrea Decl. ¶ 2).
1
Moreover, neither D’Andrea’s original Application nor his supplemental declaration contain his residential address as required by Rule 9.40(d)(1). Finally, D’Andrea’s Application does not list the dates of admission to the courts in which he is admitted to practice.
See
Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2).
3. M. Stewart Ryan
– This Court should deny Ryan’s Application because it fails to comply with multiple requirements of Rule 9.40. Despite filing a supplemental declaration, Ryan’s Application still fails to list his residential address in violation of Rule 9.40(d)(1). Ryan’s Application also does not list the specific courts to which he is admitted, or the specific dates of his admission as required by Rule 9.40(d)(2).
4. Jeffrey P. Fritz
– This Court should deny Fritz’s Application because it fails to comply with multiple requirements of Rule 9.40. Despite filing a supplemental declaration, Fritz’s Application still fails to list his residential address in violation of Rule 9.40(d)(1). Fritz’s Application also does not list the specific courts to which he is admitted, or the specific dates of his admission as required by Rule 9.40(d)(2).
5. Marci Hamilton
– This Court should deny Hamilton’s Application because it fails to comply with Rule 9.40’s requirements. As with the other Applications, Hamilton’s Application fails to satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(2)’s requirement that the applicant list the specific “
courts
to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the
dates
of admission.” Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2) (emphasis added). Hamilton’s Application only identifies States in which she is admitted and the year of admission. The Application does not list any court to which Hamilton is admitted and the date, or even month, of such admission. Hamilton’s Application also fails to list her University of Pennsylvania office address, despite it appearing on the caption of the Complaint and First Amended Complaint.
See
Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(1) (requiring that the applicant “must” provide their “office address”). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Applicants’
Pro Hac Vice
Applications.
1
This Court recognized that D’Andrea’s December 17, 2019 declaration was “entirely contrary” to the reply brief Plaintiffs submitted in support of the Applications. (3/11/2020 Tentative Order at 3, fn. 1.)
