12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

DEFENDANTS CSI AND CC’S REPLY ISO DEMURRER TO RIALES’ CLAIMS

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 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

 Assigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield,  Dept. 57

DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF RIALES’ CLAIMS IN PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date: September 4, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m.

RESERVATION ID: 079084081086

Complaint Filed: August 22, 2019 Trial Date: None Set

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 08/28/2020 03:06 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Sanchez,Deputy Clerk

 

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

2

DEFENDANTS CSI AND CC’S REPLY ISO DEMURRER TO RIALES’ CLAIMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I.INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................3

 

II.ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................3

 

A.The Court Should Sustain the Demurrer Because Riales’ Claims AreMisjoined. ...................................................................................................................3

 

B.Each of Riales’ Claims Fail and the Demurrer Should Be Sustained WithPrejudice. ....................................................................................................................6

 

1.All of Riales’ Claims Fail Because She Does Not Allege Any FactsDemonstrating CSI or CC Engaged In Any Conduct At All. ........................6

 

2.The First Claim (Stalking) Fails to Allege Sufficient Facts. ..........................7

 

3.Riales’ Second and Third Claims Fail As A Matter of Law and of Pleading. .........................................................................................................9

 

(a)Riales Concedes that Most of Her Allegations Do Not State aClaim for Invasion of Privacy Under Civil Code Section1708.8. ................................................................................................9

 

(b)Plaintiff’s Interpretation of Section 1708.8 Contradicts ItsText. ....................................................................................................9

 

(c)Riales’ Second and Third Claims Otherwise Fail to State aClaim. ...............................................................................................11

 

4.Riales’ Fourth Claim Fails Because She Does Not Allege the Natureand Extent of the Emotional Distress She Allegedly Suffered. ...................11

 

C.The Court Should Sustain the Demurrer With Prejudice .........................................12

 

III.CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................12

 

 

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

3

DEFENDANTS CSI AND CC’S REPLY ISO DEMURRER TO RIALES’ CLAIMS

I.INTRODUCTIONThe Opposition reveals what this case is about. It doesn’t point to any alleged fact showingthat CSI or CC did anything to Riales. It doesn’t identify or describe the supposed “agents” of Defendants who supposedly stalked and harassed her. It doesn’t point to a single fact showing that these same persons were the “agents” of Defendants. It doesn’t explain the bases for the myriad conclusory allegations made “on information and belief.” It does not even muster facts that should  be uniquely within Riales’ knowledge (if such facts existed), such as threats allegedly made to her, any demand she made to Defendants to cease such threats, or any description of the extent of her emotional distress. The Opposition instead waives about an obsolete letter from 1967 (cancelled the next year, and never the policy of the Church as described by Riales), and asserts that it is enough to plead Riales’ claims – and thus eventually prove her claims – that CSI, CC, and other Defendants stalked and harassed her. Her case thus boils down to the defamatory assertion that Defendants – all Scientologists or Scientology churches – by their nature do bad things to their critics. As she is a self-described critic, any tort she suffered therefore must have been committed by Defendants. Further, according to Riales’ arguments, individual critics of Scientology could amass their unsubstantiated grievances into an omnibus lawsuit – joining any claim by any individual who  believed Defendants were “motivated” by some animus against them – regardless of the conduct which underpins the claims. This is nothing but pleading by bigotry, and the Court must reject it. II.ARGUMENTA.The Court Should Sustain the Demurrer Because Riales’ Claims Are Misjoined.As the Opposition recognizes, Riales may join her claims with the claims of the other Plaintiffs only if she can show that her claims “aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”

 and 

 share a common question of law or fact. Cal. Civ. Proc. §378(a)(1); (Opp. at 2:25-5:7). Claims premised on separate and distinct acts occurring at separateand distinct times do not “arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions,”and joinder is not proper.

 Moe v. Anderson

, 207 Cal. App. 4th 826, 833 (2012);

Coleman v. TwinCoast Newspapers, Inc.

, 175 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653 (1959);

 Aghaji v. Bank of Amer., N.A.

, 247 Cal.App. 4th 1110 (2016); (Dem. at 9:4-11:8).There is no alleged fact establishing any element of any of Riales’ claims that also serves to establish any element of the claims of the other Plaintiffs. Riales brings claims that Defendants committed alleged acts of stalking, surveillance, and invasions of privacy against her. To prevail on her claims, she must prove that these

 specific instances happened to her

. Despite the Opposition’s rhetoric, the

claims actually pleaded 

 

address separate and distinct acts occurring at separate and