12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2701 Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656 Attorneys for Defendant, Church of Scientology International

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

 ssigned to Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr.

DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Filed Concurrently with Supporting  Declarations of Deidre Assam, Lynn R. Farny, William H. Forman, Gary S. Soter, and  Michael Sutter; and Objections to the  Declarations of Robert W. Thompson, Michael  Rinder, and Hana Whitfield]

Date: August 11, 2020 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 37 Complaint Filed: June 18, 2019 Trial Date: Vacated

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/29/2020 11:12 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk

 

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

 2

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I.

 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................5

 

II.

 

ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................6

 

A.

 

Plaintiff Did Not Provide Notice of the Motion. ........................................................6

 

B.

 

Plaintiff’s Inherent Authority Argument Is Improper and Meritless. ........................7

 

C.

 

The Court Cannot Grant Reconsideration Under Section 1008(a).............................8

 

1.

 

Reconsideration Is Improper Based on Plaintiff’s “New” Facts. ...................8

 

(a)

 

“Facts” From the FBT Cannot Be A Basis For Reconsideration ..................................................................................8

 

(i)

 

The Arguments “Based on” the FBT Are Meritless. .............9

 

(b)

 

“Facts” Regarding Scientology’s Arbitration Procedures Cannot Be A Basis for Reconsideration. ..........................................10

 

(i)

 

Plaintiff Already Possessed the “New” Information or Could Have Obtained it with Diligence Before the Hearing. ................................................................................11

 

(ii)

 

Plaintiff Actually Possessed the Information She Argues Is Material Before The Hearing. ..............................15

 

(c)

 

Even if Considered, Plaintiff’s Arguments Regarding the Procedures Are Meritless. ................................................................15

 

2.

 

Reconsideration is Improper Based on Re-Asserted Arguments. ................17

 

3.

 

Reconsideration is Improper Based on “New” Legal Arguments. ...............18

 

(a)

 

Enforcing the Arbitration Agreements Does Not Violate Plaintiff’s Right of Free Exercise. ....................................................18

 

(b)

 

Plaintiff’s Claims Are Within the Scope of the Arbitration Provision and Compelling Arbitration Is Not Against Public Policy. ...............................................................................................19

 

III.

 

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................19

 

 

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

 3

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Federal Cases

 

 Braunfield v. Brown

, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) .................................................................................................................... 19

 Encore Prods., Inc. v. Promise Keepers

, 53 F.Supp.2d 1101 (D. Col. 1999) ........................................................................................ 18, 19

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

,  No. 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBM, 2018 WL 3439638 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018) ............. 12, 13, 14, 17

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

,  No. 8:13-cv-10844160, 2015 WL 10844160 n.11 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2015) ........................... 16

 Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips

, 173 F.3d 933 (4th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................................... 17

 In re Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc.

, 847 F.Supp.2d 1253 (2012) ......................................................................................................... 19

Ortiz v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

, 52 F.Supp.3d 1070 (E.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................... 19 State Cases

 

Crippen v. Cent. Valley RV Outlet 

, 124 Cal.App.4th 1159 (2004) ...................................................................................................... 17

 Elmora Hebrew Ctr., Inc. v. Fishman

, 125 N.J. 404 (1991) ..................................................................................................................... 18

Garcia v. Hejmadi

, 58 Cal.App.4th 674 (1997) .......................................................................................................... 11

Gilberd v. AC Transit 

, 32 Cal.App.4th 1494 (1995) ........................................................................................................ 17

 In re Marriage of Herr 

, 174 Cal.App.4th 1463 (2009) .................................................................................................... 7, 8

 Jones v. P.S. Dev. Co., Inc.

, 166 Cal.App.4th 707 (2008) .................................................................................................... 7, 12

 Kerns v. CSE Ins. Grp.

, 106 Cal.App.4th 368 (2003) .......................................................................................................... 8

 Le Francois v. Goel 

, 35 Cal.4th 1094 (2005) .................................................................................................................. 7