12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
CSI AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
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 Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology International and Celebrity Centre International JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
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
ssigned to Hon.
Steven J. Kleifield, Dept. 57
DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’s AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION
PRO
HAC VICE
OF (1) BRIAN D. KENT; (2) GAETANO D’ANDREA; (3) M. STEWART RYAN; (4) JEFFREY P. FRITZ; (5) RICARDO MARTINEZ-CID; (6) LEA BUCCIERO; AND (7) MARCI HAMILTON
[Filed Concurrently with Request For Judicial otice; Declaration of William Forman]
Date: March 11, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 57 Complaint Filed: August 22, 2019 Trial Date: None Set
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/19/2020 03:12 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
i
CSI
AND
CC’S
OPPOSITION
TO
APPLICANTS’
PRO
HAC
VICE
APPLICATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................3
A.
Applicants’ Numerous Representations In California ...............................................3
B.
The Applications Fail To Comply With Rule 9.40 ....................................................5
C.
Applicants' Misconduct In This Case .........................................................................5
D.
Applicants’ Misconduct In The
Haney
Case ..............................................................6
III.
ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................8
A.
The Court Should Deny The Applications Because They Fail To Satisfy The Requirements Of California Rule Of Court 9.40(d) ...........................................8
B.
The Court Should Deny The Applications Because Applicants Have Made Repeated Pro Hac Vice Appearances In Violation Of Rule 9.40(b) ........................10
C.
The Court Should Deny The Applications Because Of Applicants’ Repeated Misconduct In This Matter And In The
Haney
Case ...............................12
D.
The Court Should Not Permit The Out-Of-State Lawyers Who Have Not Filed
Pro Hac Vice
Applications To Participate In This Lawsuit ............................13
IV.
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................14
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ii
CSI
AND
CC’S
OPPOSITION
TO
APPLICANTS’
PRO
HAC
VICE
APPLICATIONS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES
City Breeze, LLC v. Shahi
, 2016 WL 6236422 ................................................................................................................. 6
Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.
, 238 Cal. App. 4th 1251 (2015) ...................................................................................... 10, 11
Howard v. Superior Court
, 52 Cal. App. 3d 722 (1975) ................................................................................................. 14
J.W. v. Superior Court
, 17 Cal. App. 4th 958 (1993) ................................................................................................ 14
Kappel v. Bartlett
, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1457 (1988) ............................................................................................. 12
Moe v. Anderson
, 207 Cal. App. 4th 826 (2012) .......................................................................................... 3, 10
Sheller v. Superior Court,
158 Cal. App. 4th 1697 (2008) ...................................................................................... 10, 12
Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.
, 155 Cal. App. 4th 736 (2007) .............................................................................................. 13
STATUTES
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22356 ...................................................................................................... 13 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125 ................................................................................................ 2, 8, 14 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6126(a) ................................................................................................... 14
RULES
California Rule of Court 3.110(b) ..................................................................................................... 8 California Rule of Court 9.40 ............................................................................................ 5, 8, 10, 12 California Rule of Court 9.40(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 10 California Rule of Court 9.40(b) ........................................................................................... 1, 10, 12 California Rule of Court 9.40(d) ....................................................................................................... 2 California Rule of Court 9.40(d)(5) ...................................................................................... 2, 5, 8, 9