12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANTS CSI AND CC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
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 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, Plaintiff, 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’S AND CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION AND FOR STAY OF LITIGATION AS TO PLAINTIFFS CARNELL BIXLER, BIXLER-ZAVALA, JANE DOE #1, AND JANE DOE #2
[
Filed concurrently with: Supplemental Declaration of Lynn R. Farny; Objections to Plaintiffs’ Declarations Filed In Support of Their Omnibus Opposition; Objections to the March 6, 2020 Declaration of Michael Rinder; and Proof of Service
]
Date: October 26, 2020 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept: 57
RESERVATION NO. 223516322910 and
RESERVATION NO. 489975475786
Complaint Filed: August 22, 2019 Trial Date: None Set
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/19/2020 04:56 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2
DEFENDANTS CSI’S AND CC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................3
II.
SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS IN REPLY ................................................................................4
III.
ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................5
A.
Plaintiffs Do Not Dispute They Executed Arbitration Agreements that Defendants Can Enforce Under the FAA. ..................................................................5
B.
The Arbitrability of the Disputes Is Reserved for the Arbitrators. .............................6
C.
Enforcement of the Private Agreements Does Not Violate the First Amendment. ...............................................................................................................8
1.
Enforcement of the Agreements Does Not Constitute State Action. .............8
2.
The Agreements Do Not Call for So-Called “Rituals.” ...............................10
IV.
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................12
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
3
DEFENDANTS CSI AND CC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
I.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs ask this Court to adopt a radical position never embraced by any court in the United States: Agreements to submit disputes to religious arbitration are null and void when one of the signatories later decides to leave the religion. The entire thrust of the Opposition is that an apostate – a person who has left a religion – may not be “forced” to participate in religious arbitration for fear of violating the First Amendment. This argument runs counter to every principle of contract law and arbitration law, and itself creates an impermissible and unconstitutional separate standard for adjudicating agreements entered into by churches. Under contract law, parties can enter into agreements that limit their constitutional rights. Non-disparagement and confidentiality agreements impose restrictions on free speech, but those agreements are not void when a party no longer wants to be bound. Court enforcement of private agreements or arbitration awards that limit rights is not state action as to the contracting parties. When this Court decides that Plaintiffs may not proceed in this Court with their claims because they agreed to proceed under Scientology law, the State is not compelling Plaintiffs to do anything. Plaintiffs’ argument violates arbitration law – particularly the Federal Arbitration Act – because there can be no special rule holding arbitration clauses with churches unenforceable when one of the parties leaves the religion. As shown in the Motions, courts routinely enforce arbitration agreements implementing religious law and relying on panels of religious authorities as arbitrators. Failure to enforce the arbitration clauses
because
they are religious in fact violates neutral principles of arbitration law and the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. United States Supreme Court authority running from
Watson v. Jones
, 80 U.S. 679, 729-31 (1871) to the present provides that churches must be free from judicial interference in establishing conditions for membership and rules for self-governance. Agreement to be bound by Scientology law, including Scientology dispute resolution procedures and arbitration, is a condition for acceptance into the Scientology religion. This Court may not assist Plaintiffs in their attempts to rewrite the terms of those conditions and supplant them with terms crafted by this Court. The fundamental flaws in Plaintiffs’ First Amendment argument are just some of many defects in the Opposition. The First Amendment argument itself rests on a bizarre assertion that Defendants are not “really” trying to enforce the terms of the Agreements, but seek to bring charges against Plaintiffs through a “bill of particulars” and other hidden “rituals.” The argument is barred by the parol evidence rule because it contradicts the terms of the Agreements requiring arbitration and is flat-out illogical: Defendants have moved to enforce
arbitration
Agreements, and not any
