J
eMas
Be Mic
L
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION AND JOINDER; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
67289720v7
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291)
rmangels@jmbm.com
MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750)
mhinks@jmbm.com
IMAN G. WILSON (Bar No. 280806)
iwilson@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 [Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Dept. 37]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION AND JOINDER IN MOTION OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
[
Filed concurrently with Declaration of Warren McShane, Appendix of Non-California Authorities and [Proposed] Order
] Date: January 30, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 37 Action filed: June 18, 2019 Trial date: Not yet set
RESERVATION ID: 788791955057
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/20/2019 03:45 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk
J
eMas
Be Mic
L
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282
MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION AND JOINDER; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
67289720v7
TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on January 30, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 37 of the above-entitled Court, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Defendant Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with her written agreements with RTC and Defendant Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) to resolve all disputes through binding religious arbitration and staying this matter pending final conclusion of those proceedings. This motion is made pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.2,
et seq
., on the grounds that written agreements to arbitrate the entire controversy exist and that Plaintiff Valerie Haney has refused to arbitrate the controversy. By this Notice and Motion, RTC also joins in the Motion to Compel Religious Arbitration filed this date by CSI, and specifically joins in all arguments and evidence presented by CSI in its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its Motion to Compel Religious Arbitration. This Motion and Joinder will be and hereby is made on the grounds stated in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of this Motion and Joinder, as well as the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by CSI, the Declarations of Warren McShane, Lynn Farny, Catherine Fraser, and Gary S. Soter, and exhibits thereto, the pleadings and other papers filed in this action, and on such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this matter. DATED: December 20, 2019 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP ROBERT E. MANGELS MATTHEW D. HINKS IMAN G. WILSON By: MATTHEW D. HINKS Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
J
eMas
Be Mic
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283
MOTION TO COMPEL RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION AND JOINDER; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
67289720v7
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................7II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................7A.Defendant Religious Technology Center ...................................................................7B.Plaintiff’s Tenure with RTC .......................................................................................8C.Allegations of FAC Against RTC ..............................................................................9III.ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................10A.Plaintiff Is Bound by Multiple Agreements Requiring the Arbitration of Any Dispute Between Her and RTC ........................................................................10B.All of the Causes of Action Plaintiff Alleges Against RTC Are Subject to Arbitration to the Same Extent as Her Claims Against CSI ....................................11C.Any Question Regarding the Scope of the Agreements to Arbitrate or Their Validity Must Be Determined by the Eventual Arbitrators ......................................11D.The First Amendment Protects the Scientology Ecclesiastical Dispute Resolution Procedures and This Court May Not Impede Them ..............................13
1.The First Amendment Bars Any Unconscionability Challenge
....................13
2.Even Apart from the Ministerial Exception, the Arbitration Provisions Are Not Unconscionable
............................................................15a.There Is No Procedural Unconscionability ......................................15 b.There Is No Substantive Unconscionability .....................................18IV.CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................21