l
Robert W. Thompson, Esq. (SBN: 250038) THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C.
2
700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
3
Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 513-6111 / Fax: (650) 513-6071
4
Brian D. Kent, Esq. (Pro Hae Vice)
5
M. Stewart Ryan, Esq. (Pro Hae Vice)
6
LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP 1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
7
Philadelphia, PA 19102
8
Tel: (215) 399-9255 / Fax: (215) 241-8700
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
12
CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC
13
BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE 1; MARIE BOBETTE RIALES; AND JANE DOE 2,
14
15
Plaintiffs,
16
V.
17 18
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE
19
INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCA VIGE;
2
DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1 -25,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants. Case No.: 19STCV29458
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/09/2020 09:07 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9
1 11
12 13
14 15 16 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 28
I.
THE CONTRACTS AT ISSUE DO NOT EVIDENCE TRANSACTION INVOLVING COMMERCE, LET ALONE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
a No Evidence of Transactions Involving Interstate
Commerce Has
Beet Produced
The intra-state religious service agreements at issue do not evidence transactions involvin commerce, let alone interstate commerce. Nor do they encompass criminal conduct that occurre after Plaintiffs left Scientology. To be clear, no Defendant has produced
any evidence
concernin any transaction involving commerce relating to the religious services contracts at issue. The phras involving commerce in the FAA is the functional equivalent of affecting commerce.
Shepar v. Edward Mackay Enterprises Inc.
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1092, l 097. Accordingly, althoug Congress's power to regulate commerce is broad, it does have limits ... [A] relatively trivia impact on interstate commerce cannot be used as an excuse for broad regulation of state or privat· activities.
Id.
at 1099;
see also United States v. Lopez
(1995) 514 U.S. 549, 558-559. Asserting FAA preemption, Defendants bear the burden to present evidence establishing contract with an arbitration provision that affects interstate commerce, and failure to do so render the FAA inapplicable.
Lane
v.
Francis Capital Management LLC
(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 676 687;
Hoover v. American Income L{fe Ins. Co.
(2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1207;
rVoolls v. Superior Court
(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 197, 211. Thus, the claims
and
agreements at issue mus have a substantial relationship to interstate commerce.
Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies Inc.
v.
Dobson
(
1995) 513 U.S. 265 (FAA does not apply without showing that petitioner whil performing his duties under the employment contract was working 'in' commerce, was producin goods for commerce, or was engaging in activity that affected commerce ). Defendants mus further demonstrate the transaction at issue involved commerce
in fact
not merely that commerc may have been contemplated.
Id.
This determination is a
question of fact
Goodwin v. Elkins Co.
(1984) 730 F.2d 99, 109. Here, the claims involve criminal conduct committed long after Plaintiffs left Scientology Defendants also fail to cite a single case where the FAA was found to have covered a purporte contract for intra-state religious services. And as required by the
Lane Woolls Hoover
an
Shepard
decisions, Defendants failed to cite
any evidence
that the purported religious service agreements fit within an activity that Congress may regulate under the commerce power such a activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
Shepard
148 Cal.App.4th at 1098.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
IO
2
13
4
15
6 7
8
9
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
Instead, Defendants' solely claim that its use of a multimedia communications center i1 Los Angeles and Scientologists making donations to Defendants somehow turns these claims o criminal conduct into transactions effecting intrastate commerce.
See
Supplemental Declaratio of Lynn Famy, Dec. 2, 2020. Criminal conduct by its very nature cannot be considered transaction, nor can it be considered a transaction effecting intrastate commerce. Defendant_ also fail to cite to any aspect of the agreements at issue whereby these Plaintiffs committed' themselves to participate in any form of interstate commerce, let alone to support some apparen multimedia operation meant to spread the word of Scientology. In fact, Defendants have no and cannot produce any evidence that the religious services agreements at issue involved
an
commercial transaction whatsoever, such as Plaintiffs providing money, collateral, etc., i exchange for receiving religious services. The agreements at issue simply belie Defendants' claims that the agreements substantiall affect interstate commerce subjecting them to arbitration under the FAA.
See e g
Exhibit t Defendant CSI Motion to Compel Religious Arbitration filed April 1, 2020. These agreement specifically dictate that eve1y Scientology church, mission, or organization is totally and legally independent and therefore the religious service at issue is controlled and supervised by th church where the service takes place. This means the agreement is between one individual an one church, not any interstate or international organization as claimed.
See
Ex.
1
6. Th agreements also clearly implicate services with the intention of self-improvement and spiritua advancement designed to give spiritual aid.
See
Ex
1
,r,r
-5.
There is nothing in the agreement or anything put forth by Defendants to demonstrate any kind of commercial transaction. On thi basis alone the Motions must be denied.
b. The Contracts at Issue Do Not Involve Secular Transactions Falling Under th FAA s Intended Purview
The use of transaction involving commerce in the FAA, 9 U.S.C.A. § 2, and laterjudicia interpretation show that the FAA was created to resolve
secular
disputes, not religious ones [T]he fundamental canon of statutory interpretation is to 'give meaning to every word and phrase in the statute to accomplish a result consistent with the legislative purpose. '
Pettus v Cole
(
996
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION
