Case No. B310559 I
N THE
C
OURT OF
 A 
PPEAL OF THE
S
TATE OF
C
 ALIFORNIA 
 S
ECOND
 A 
PPELLATE
D
ISTRICT
,
 
D
IVISION
F
IVE
 CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER, CEDRIC BIXLER-ZAVALA, JANE DOE #1 & JANE DOE #2
, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v.
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Respondent,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER & CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
, Defendants and Real Parties in Interest.
RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Case No. 19STCV29458 – Hon. Steven J. Kleifield, Department 57
 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
*WILLIAM H. FORMAN (SBN: 150477)whforman@winston.comDAVID C. SCHEPER (SBN: 120174)dscheper@winston.comMARGARET E. DAYTON (SBN: 274353)pedayton@winston.com333
 
S
OUTH
G
RAND
 A 
 VENUE
,
 
38
TH
F
LOOR
L
OS
 A 
NGELES
,
 
CA 
 
90071-1543(213)615-1700 • FAX:
 
(213) 615-1750
 A
TTORNEYS FOR
 D
EFENDANTS AND
R
EAL
 P 
 ARTIES IN
I 
NTEREST 
 
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
 &
CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
 
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS (SBN: 48291) rem@jmbm.com *MATTHEW D. HINKS (SBN: 200750)mhinks@jmbm.com1900
 
 A 
 VENUE OF THE
S
TARS
,
 
7
TH
F
LOOR
L
OS
 A 
NGELES
,
 
CA 
 
90067-4308(310)203-8080
 
• FAX:
 
(310) 203-0567
 A
TTORNEYS FOR
 D
EFENDANT AND
R
EAL
 P 
 ARTY IN
I 
NTEREST 
 
 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
 
   D  o  c  u  m  e  n   t  r  e  c  e   i  v  e   d   b  y   t   h  e   C   A   2  n   d   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t  o   f   A  p  p  e  a   l .
 
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .... 8II. DEMURRER ............................................................................. 13III.ANSWER.................................................................................. 15IV. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS .............................................. 23 A.The Parties, Their History With Each Other, and the Agreements to Arbitrate ................................................... 23B.Petitioners’ Lawsuit .......................................................... 28C.The Church Defendants’ Motions to Compel Arbitration ......................................................................... 30D.The Criminal Case Against Masterson and Petitioners’Failure to Seek a Stay ....................................................... 31E.Opposition, Replies, and Further Briefing on the Arbitration Motions ........................................................... 32F.The Trial Court’s Order Compelling Arbitration ............. 36G.Proceedings in This Court and the Supreme Court ........ 40 V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................. 41 VI. VERIFICATION ...................................................................... 42 VII. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ......... 43 A.Standard of Review ........................................................... 43B.Enforcement of Religious Arbitration Agreements IsCommon ............................................................................. 46C.The Arbitration Order Does Not Violate Petitioners’First Amendment Rights .................................................. 491.Enforcing a Private Arbitration Agreement DoesNot Constitute State Action and Thus Cannot Violate the First Amendment ................................... 492.Courts Have Rejected Petitioners’ Argument ThatEnforcing Religious Arbitration Agreements Violates the First Amendment. ................................. 533.Petitioners’ “Religious Ritual” ArgumentContradicts the Record and Violates the Religious Abstention Doctrine ................................................... 56
   D  o  c  u  m  e  n   t  r  e  c  e   i  v  e   d   b  y   t   h  e   C   A   2  n   d   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t  o   f   A  p  p  e  a   l .
View on Scribd