Transcript: In the Danny Masterson lawsuit, Scientology continues to get its way

After Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Steven Kleifield stunned us with a December 30 ruling for the Church of Scientology, denying the right to trial for former Scientologists who are suing the church and actor Danny Masterson, forcing them instead into Scientology’s internal “religious arbitration,” the decision left the case in a bit of a pickle.

While his decision put the case on hold for Chrissie Carnell-Bixler, her husband rocker Cedric Bixler-Zavala, and two women going by the names Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, that decision to force them into arbitration did not effect the fifth plaintiff in the case, a woman named Bobette Riales.

Bobette was never a Scientologist, and had never signed Scientology’s service contracts with their arbitration clauses. So what should happen to her part of the lawsuit now? Should she be put on hold while the others go through arbitration? Or should Bobette be allowed to continue and maybe start putting Masterson or Scientology officials through depositions and otherwise gathering key evidence for her lawsuit and potentially for use by the others?

At a hearing on January 29, what to do about Riales was something the judge had wanted to decide. Instead, we learned that he put the matter off until March 8 after some kind of hold up. Since then, we’ve been wondering what happened in that hearing (we tried to listen in that day, but the court’s remote audio service never came on), and now we’ve managed to get a transcript of the hearing.

We know it’s somewhat technical and not everyone is going to be interested in this kind of minutiae. But this is an important lawsuit, and we thought it was interesting to see, once again, that Scientology seems to get what it wants in these hearings.

Watch for example as Scientology asks for and gets an extension on filing a planned anti-SLAPP motion against Bobette, while the attorney for Bobette and the other plaintiffs, Stewart Ryan, gets shut down when he asks for a simple clarification on the judge’s December 30 order, and whether the judge had made his ruling from federal or state law.

We’d really appreciate the perspective of the lawyers who read this site. Is it just us, or are the attorneys for these women still, nearly two years after filing this lawsuit, not somehow playing hardball with Scientology and with this judge? And how does Scientology blithely get extensions and such easy treatment? Well, someone will tell us we’re reading too much into it, we suppose. But here’s the whole thing, warts and all, picking up right after the various parties had made their initial appearances…

Judge Kleifield: OK. So today we have a case management conference, and in a previous order I said put on the agenda today what should be done with the remaining plaintiff, Riales, who has not been ordered to arbitration. And I requested a briefing from the parties. And I did receive some briefs from the defendants. Did the plaintiff file any briefs?

Steward Ryan: Your honor, I believe that we filed a case management conference memorandum on January 29th. A case management statement, rather.

Judge Kleifield: I did see that. It was filed on the 25th, I think. Just the case management —

Stewart Ryan: Yes, I’m sorry. Yes, today’s’ the 29th. You are right.

Judge Kleifield: OK. All right. Well, that’s sort of what I thought. OK. Well, the issue that I wanted to address was, the reason I put it out there was, so the case is now stayed as to three of the — or actually four of the five, if I have them down right. There’s one remaining plaintiff whose case would not ordinarily be stayed as a result of being sent to arbitration. I guess my question is what really is the utility of staying Ms. Riales’s case? She remained a part of this case because of the existence of certain comments, issues of fact, and conceivably issues of law. If her action is stayed and the arbitration gets completed, really, what effect will that have on her case? That’s really the question. Would any of the factual findings, assuming there are factual findings, made in the arbitration, what consequence would they have in her case? So really what reason is there to stay her case? I know that there’s no objection to it, but it seems to me that there’s no reason for it. I’m happy to hear from anybody who wants to be heard.

Stewart Ryan: Sure, your honor. This is Stewart Ryan on behalf of plaintiffs. So I can address a couple things with respect to the issues that your honor raised. And so first and foremost, and I’m sure your honor recalls having denied already a motion to sever in determining that, from a joinder perspective, all of these claims not — [technical difficulties] — because they do involve common issues of law and fact. And, ultimately, as it relates to the claims advanced in the first amended complaint, the deposition as from, of course, a factual perspective at a minimum, that all of the — the claims advanced by each plaintiff are all intermingled. It will involve, I mean, almost actually identical questions of fact, save for differences with respect to allegations of each individual sexual assault. So from that perspective, I think that it would be — there would necessarily be implications from a factual perspective whether we’re talking about litigation or arbitration.

Beyond that, your honor, I think it’s important to note that with regard to the motions to compel arbitration, those were filed by the institutional defendant, Church of Scientology, Celebrity Centre, and RTC, the Religious Technology Center. Defendant Masterson did not file a motion to compel arbitration, nor at any time did he join any of those motions. His entitlement to enforce arbitration has never been the subject of a motion or briefed.

And so with respect to application at this stage, we understand your honor indicated in the order compelling arbitration for the institutional defendants that defendant Masterson may participate in the underlying arbitration, but based on the fact that the, that defendant Masterson never himself sought to enforce arbitration, there would be application that there remain claims of the Bixler plaintiff as well as Jane Doe Number 1 and Number 2 that are subject to litigation and that we would proceed discovery on in the event that there’s not a stay as to not-yet plaintiff Riales’s case, but as to potentially all access of the case, arbitration and litigation.

And we advanced in our motion that has yet to be heard — we attempted to move ex-parte for an order shortening time, but there’s still an outstanding motion which relates to mark as well, which is something that was raised at certain points during the arguments with regard to arbitration.

But as your honor, I believe, is aware, there’s an ongoing concurrent criminal prosecution of defendant Masterson that deals with the three female plaintiffs that have been compelled to arbitration by the institutional defendants. There’s a criminal protective order in place that we believe would functionally prohibit their participation in arbitration because, for example, defendant is not allowed to be within 100 yards, I believe, of this — of these three plaintiffs, nor are there allowed to be any communications.

So that’s a long way of saying that ultimately deposition and everything must be stayed at least until the outcome of the criminal proceedings. But in the event that your honor doesn’t order a stay as to the arbitration, we’re prepared to move forward on discovery in plaintiff Riales’s case, as well as to the Bixler plaintiffs and Jane Doe as it relates to Mr. Masterson.

And, you know, at the end of the day we see it as essentially an all-or-nothing proposition in that regard.

Andrew Brettler: If I may respond, your honor? It’s Andrew Brettler on behalf of defendant Masterson. Mr. Ryan is incorrect in his statement that Mr. Masterson did not join in the motion to compel arbitration. He absolutely did so verbally in court, and the court’s order reflected as much. So that’s just a false or an incorrect statement.

As as for, you know, the issue of the protective order that Mr. Ryan raised, it does not — that doesn’t make sense. You know, whether or not we’re proceeding in court or in arbitration, you know, I don’t understand the issue of how the protective order would prevent either proceeding from going forward. You know, it certainly doesn’t apply only in the context of an arbitration, nor, you know, would it apply only in the context of a courtroom. And I’m not sure that a protective order, you know, would prohibit this case form — it’s the plaintiff’s case — would prohibit plaintiff from pursuing their claims regardless.

Notwithstanding, you know, any of the forgoing as stated in our supplemental briefing, Mr. Masterson has no objection to the court staying Ms. Riales’s case. All discovery with respect to Mr. Masterson or discovery propounded on Mr. Masterson would be stayed as a result of the pending criminal charges against him in any event. So there would be no prejudice for the court to stay that portion of the case because they wouldn’t be able to take any discovery against Mr. Masterson regardless.

Judge Kleifield: All right. Getting back to the question that I raised, setting aside for a moment the various requests for stays based on the criminal proceedings, and so on, setting those aside because there are motions that I guess are being brought on those subjects that haven’t been ruled on, but just based on the fact that three or I guess it’s four, four plaintiffs have been ordered to arbitration, one has not — Riales — and getting back to my question, what is to be gained by delaying Riales’s case pending completion of the arbitration? The arbitration gets completed. What could happen in the arbitration that would be of any consequence to Riales’s case?

William Forman: Your honor, this is Bill Forman for Church of Scientology International and Celebrity Centre International. And I’d like to comment on that and on the position taken by the plaintiffs, which it would have been helpful to have a brief from them to know exactly what their position is.

But Mr. Ryan stated repeatedly in his presentation that there are intermingled issues of law and fact between Riales’ claims and the plaintiff’s claims, and the court previously on ruling on the demurrer opined that there were common issues of fact, potentially common issues of law. Now, under controlling authority, what has to happen is this case has to be stayed and the arbitration goes forward.

In Heritage Provider Network, Inc., v. Superior Court, 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, the court held, quote, “Any party to a judicial proceeding is entitled to a stay of those proceedings whenever, one, the arbitration of a controversy has been ordered, and, two, that controversy has been ordered, and, two, that controversy is also an issue involved in the pending judicial action. The purpose of the statutory stay is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.”

And that case, of course, cites to code of civil procedure section 1281.4, which provides for a stay of the civil proceeding when there is a common issue involved in the arbitration to preserve the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.

That is the case — that is what is to be achieved, and by plaintiff’s counsel’s own statements, they are asserting that there are overlapping issues of fact and law.

Judge Kleifield: Is that —

William Forman: And the court has opined that as well.

Judge Kleifield: Is that a case that was cited in your papers?

William Forman: It was not a case that was cited in our papers, your honor, and we had — in fact, we did not know what the plaintiff’s position was and we actually did not know what it was until this hearing began, but it’s also under the statute CCP 1281.4.

Judge Kleifield: Well, I have not read the case, and so I don’t really know the facts of the case. I’m not sure if it applies or not. I haven’t read the case. This is the first I’m hearing of it. So I — first time I’m hearing the plaintiff’s position is today, and the first time I’m hearing about this case is today. I don’t know that what you have told me really tells me what I need to do here.

William Forman: I would —

Judge Kleifield: Go ahead.

William Forman: I would direct your honor then to the statute CCP section 1281.4 on which the case interprets, and it states — they’re asserting now that there’s a — there’s common issues of fact and law. The court has taken that position in ruling on the demurrer. What happens then is this case is stayed and the arbitration goes forward.

Judge Kleifield: Also, if you look at the final paragraph of 1281.4, it says, “If the issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue only.”

William Forman: Yes, your honor. And I heard the plaintiff take the position that there were many intermingled issues of fact and law. That’s what they said here this morning.

Robert Mangels: Your honor.

Judge Kleifield: Go ahead.

Robert Mangels: Robert Mangels on behalf of Religious Technology Center. Your honor, in deference to the court, I would suggest we put this over — so we now understand Mr. Ryan’s position. We just pulled the rabbit out of the hat a few minutes ago — to allow the court to consider his new position and consider this Heritage case and consider the statute.

I would say all of us would be well-served by doing that in a couple days, whenever it’s convenient to the court. It’s an important juncture in the case, and I don’t think anyone wants to go down the wrong road here.

Judge Kleifield: Well, first of all, would you give me the case name and citation again.

William Forman: Of course, your honor. Heritage Provider Network, Inc., v. Superior Court.

Judge Kleifield: OK.

William Forman: And the citation is 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, and the page I read from was 1152, and it’s 2008 is the year of decision.

Judge Kleifield: Well, I guess that’s fine. I guess we can come back again. I was hoping to have this issue decided today. All right. Well, that’s fine. We can put this over. Let me see what we have. We don’t have anything coming up for quite a while on this case.

Let’s see. The next scheduled date is May 12th. So I guess the parties can file another brief let’s say no more than three pages, and addressing the issues that we have set for today in light of the Heritage case, and file your briefs no later than five court days before the hearing.

I do agree this is an important juncture in the case, and, unfortunately, we’re not making any progress here today.

Let’s get a date out maybe 30 days or something, whatever is available.

Court clerk: March 8th at 8:30.

Judge Kleifield: OK. March 8th, 2021, at 8:30 am.

William Forman: Bill Forman for Church of Scientology International. That’s fine with us, your honor. May I raise on housekeeping issue in connection with that date?

Judge Kleifield: Yes.

William Forman: We have under current stipulation, if the Riales case is not stayed, the defendants — this is the last day for the defendants to file an anti-SLAPP motion against Riales. Could we continue that date to March 8th and pick up at that time?

Stewart Ryan: Your honor, this is Stewart Ryan for the plaintiff. We have no objection to that.

Judge Kleifield: All right. Now, in other words, you want there to be an extension to file it until the date of our next case management conference, and then you would seek another order from me at that point depending on how I rule.

William Forman: If the case is stayed, I would probably not need another order from you. If the case were to proceed, we would be prepared to file the motion that day.

Judge Kleifield: OK. All right. That’s fine then.

William Forman: Thank you.

Judge Kleifield: The time for you to bring a anti-SLAPP motion is tolled until the date of our next hearing.

William Forman: Thank you, your honor.

Judge Kleifield: You’re welcome. I’m also looking at the calendar. I know that the plaintiff was — there were various motions for stay, I guess the plaintiff was going to bring a motion for stay, and I don’t see a date that’s been reserved for that either.

Stewart Ryan: Your honor, this is Stewart Ryan for the plaintiff. I don’t have that date right in front of me. I do believe that the motion was filed, but I’ll look into that and determine what it is.

Judge Kleifield: OK. All right. Then anything else that anybody wants to discuss this morning?

Stewart Ryan: Stewart Ryan for the plaintiff, your honor. One point of clarification, if I’m able to state it now, and if not it may be something raised on March 8th? But under your order compelling arbitration, it was not clear to me whether your honor was compelling arbitration pursuant to specifically the FAA of the CAA. I know we briefed specific issues the regard to the FAA, which leads me to presume that you were compelling it pursuant to FAA. But I sought clarification on that, if you can.

Judge Kleifield: Well, I haven’t looked at my order since I issued it in December, and whatever the order says, it says.

Stewart Ryan: What I read it to say is you made reference to the fact that there were motions filed on the basis of CAA and FAA, but it was not — I don’t think that there was a specific statement as to how the court — under what facts the court was compelling arbitration.

William Forman: Your honor, Bill Forman for Church of Scientology. There’s no motion for clarification or reconsideration pending.

Judge Kleifield: I agree.

Steward Ryan: OK. Thank you, your honor.

Judge Kleifield: You’re welcome. All right. Does somebody want to give notice or is notice waived?

Stewart Ryan: Notice waived, your honor.

 
——————–

Scientology’s paranoia, a podcast

We enjoyed speaking with Champlain College instructor Michel Gagné for his podcast Paranoid Planet. Our bit starts at about 30 minutes in.

 
——————–

Source Code

“We’re not in the business of whether people are crazy or not crazy. It’s just a method of calling dirty names anyway. The psychiatrists have no idea who’s crazy and who’s sane, and so forth. It’s just a matter of saying, ‘This fellow’s no good, and the US government wants to get him out of the way so he’s crazy.’ It’s just a matter of expediency. It says en masse, ‘We don’t agree with this particular person. He sees spiders on the ceiling and we don’t. Therefore he’s crazy.’ Has nothing to do with anything we are doing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Just forget those classifications. We don’t care how potty this guy’s ideas of the physical universe are, you know, he just might have come down here from the Martian scout command or something like this, and they probably have very, very odd ideas, you see? The quality, the significance of the fellow’s ideas are no business of the auditor’s.” — L. Ron Hubbard, February 19, 1963

 
——————–

Avast, Ye Mateys

“Recently Flag was divided into 3 separate orgs. The Flag Bureaux (FB), the International Management Org was the first to be formed fully. It is the FOUNDING Org of the other two. It is doing very well and has stats rising in most areas and is heavily in the Mission business. Its colour flash is GREEN. The Flag Admin Org (FAO) is the Service Org. It trains, processes and handles Finance. It has the pattern of the standard 7 Division Organization. It is the ESTABLISHING ORG. The FAO flash color is RED. The Flag Ship Org is the ship itself. It consists of the usual yacht organization functions of Command, Deck, Stewards and Galley and Engine Room. The Ship Org Flash color is BLUE….To summarize the FB is running excellently, the tech and training of the FAO is tops. Finance FAO is going in well. By constant personal work and lots of help, I have these points in hand. Now the three numbered points above must occur and every effort, including very heavy Ethics, will be made to bring them into existence. Your cooperation will be appreciated.” — The Commodore, February 19, 1971

 
——————–

Overheard in the FreeZone

“A friend of mine had cancer that just vanished with auditing. The most I’ve had so far is about a year ago I was getting some auditing and I got sick. We located the suppressive terminal and it totally blew, which I thought was pretty cool. It would be cool to have a book of this stuff, sort of like the format of Have You Lived Before This Life. Maybe it doesn’t immediately cure every physical illness, but there are enough ‘miracles’ that it would be hard to deny there is something to it.”

 
——————–

Past is Prologue

1999: Adweek published an article this week on the controversy over anti-Scientology advertising on public buses in Clearwater, Florida. “The ads were purchased by Former Scientologists Speaking Out, which asserts its First Amendment rights were violated when the ads were removed. ‘When you look at the board’s definition of political advertising, it is limited to that for candidates running for office,’ said Ken Dandar, the ex-Scientologists’ attorney. ‘They now have a nonprofit organization that is willing to sue them if they don’t do the right thing.’ Scientology lawyer Paul Johnson said the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority should move to strike any noncommercial ads from public transportation, or else the county could see ‘hate organizations like the KKK’ running ads on its buses. ‘This is important stuff under the First Amendment, but the American Association of Advertising Agencies believes that advertisers should be able to advertise,’ said John Kamp, a Washington, D.C., attorney at the 4A’s.”

 
——————–

Random Howdy

“Confiscating people’s passports is a classic Eastern European sex trade/slave tactic. It doesn’t get more obvious and sinister.”

 
——————–

Full Court Press: What we’re watching at the Underground Bunker

Criminal prosecutions:
— Danny Masterson charged for raping three women: Masterson arraigned Jan 20. Next conf to set prelim, March 24.
— Jay and Jeff Spina, Medicare fraud: Jay’s sentencing delayed to March 2.
— Hanan and Rizza Islam and other family members, Medi-Cal fraud: Trial scheduled for May 20 in Los Angeles
— David Gentile, GPB Capital, fraud: Charged in Brooklyn federal court on Feb 4. Arraigned on Feb 9. Pretrial conference set for Apr 29.

Civil litigation:
— Luis and Rocio Garcia v. Scientology: Oral arguments were heard on July 30 at the Eleventh Circuit
— Valerie Haney v. Scientology: Forced to ‘religious arbitration.’ Petition for writ of mandate denied Oct 22 by Cal 2nd Appellate District. Petition for review by state supreme court denied Dec 11.
— Chrissie Bixler et al. v. Scientology and Danny Masterson: Dec 30, Judge Kleifield granted Scientology’s motions to compel arbitration. March 8: Status conference.
— Matt and Kathy Feschbach tax debt: Eleventh Circuit ruled on Sept 9 that Feshbachs can’t discharge IRS debt in bankruptcy. Dec 17: Feshbachs sign court judgment obliging them to pay entire $3.674 million tax debt, plus interest from Nov 19.
— Brian Statler Sr v. City of Inglewood: Second amended complaint filed, trial set for Nov 9, 2021.
— Author Steve Cannane defamation trial: Trial concluded, Cannane victorious, awarded court costs. Case appealed on Dec 24.

Concluded litigation:
— Dennis Nobbe, Medicare fraud, PPP loan fraud: Charged July 29. Bond revoked Sep 14. Nobbe dead, Sep 14.
— Jane Doe v. Scientology (in Miami): Jane Doe dismissed the lawsuit on May 15 after the Clearwater Police dropped their criminal investigation of her allegations.

 
——————–

SCIENTOLOGY BLACK OPS: Tom Cruise and dirty tricks

The Australian Seven News network cancelled a 10-part investigation of Scientology and its history of dirty tricks. Read the transcripts of the episodes and judge for yourself why Tom Cruise and Tommy Davis might not have wanted viewers to see this hard-hitting series by journalist Bryan Seymour.

SCIENTOLOGY: FAIR GAME

After the success of their double-Emmy-winning, three-season A&E series ‘Scientology and the Aftermath,’ Leah Remini and Mike Rinder continue the conversation on their podcast, ‘Scientology: Fair Game.’ We’ve created a landing page where you can hear all of the episodes so far.

LEAH REMINI: SCIENTOLOGY AND THE AFTERMATH

An episode-by-episode guide to Leah Remini’s three-season, double-Emmy winning series that changed everything for Scientology watching. Originally aired from 2016 to 2019 on the A&E network, and now on Netflix.

SCIENTOLOGY’S CELEBRITIES, from A to Z

Find your favorite Hubbardite celeb at this index page — or suggest someone to add to the list!

 
Other links: Scientology’s Ideal Orgs, from one end of the planet to the other. Scientology’s sneaky front groups, spreading the good news about L. Ron Hubbard while pretending to benefit society. Scientology Lit: Books reviewed or excerpted in a weekly series. How many have you read?

 
——————–

THE WHOLE TRACK

[ONE year ago] California is going ‘Ideal,’ and Scientology is on fire about it
[TWO years ago] Leah Remini accuses former Scientologists of sabotaging an episode of ‘Aftermath’
[THREE years ago] Atack: What David Mayo told me about L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the upper levels
[FOUR years ago] Disconnecting from the dead: Another employer accused of forcing Scientology is taken to court
[FIVE years ago] DOX: A former L. Ron Hubbard business partner dishes on Scientology to the feds
[SIX years ago] HBO moves back ‘Going Clear’ to March 29 and TV’s most coveted spot: Sunday night
[SEVEN years ago] SCIENTOLOGY’S PRAYER: The Hail Mary petition to keep David Miscavige from being deposed
[EIGHT years ago] SUPER POWER UPDATE: Scientology Has Even More Excuses Not to Open Its Boondoggle
[NINE years ago] Scientology Sunday Funnies: There’s a Chill Down Under!

 
——————–

——————–

Posted by Tony Ortega on February 19, 2021 at 07:00

E-mail tips to tonyo94 AT gmail DOT com or follow us on Twitter. We also post updates at our Facebook author page. After every new story we send out an alert to our e-mail list and our FB page.

Our new book with Paulette Cooper, Battlefield Scientology: Exposing L. Ron Hubbard’s dangerous ‘religion’ is now on sale at Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats. Our book about Paulette, The Unbreakable Miss Lovely: How the Church of Scientology tried to destroy Paulette Cooper, is on sale at Amazon in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook versions. We’ve posted photographs of Paulette and scenes from her life at a separate location. Reader Sookie put together a complete index. More information can also be found at the book’s dedicated page.

The Best of the Underground Bunker, 1995-2020 Just starting out here? We’ve picked out the most important stories we’ve covered here at the Underground Bunker (2012-2020), The Village Voice (2008-2012), New Times Los Angeles (1999-2002) and the Phoenix New Times (1995-1999)

Other links: BLOGGING DIANETICS: Reading Scientology’s founding text cover to cover | UP THE BRIDGE: Claire Headley and Bruce Hines train us as Scientologists | GETTING OUR ETHICS IN: Jefferson Hawkins explains Scientology’s system of justice | SCIENTOLOGY MYTHBUSTING: Historian Jon Atack discusses key Scientology concepts | Shelly Miscavige, 15 years gone | The Lisa McPherson story told in real time | The Cathriona White stories | The Leah Remini ‘Knowledge Reports’ | Hear audio of a Scientology excommunication | Scientology’s little day care of horrors | Whatever happened to Steve Fishman? | Felony charges for Scientology’s drug rehab scam | Why Scientology digs bomb-proof vaults in the desert | PZ Myers reads L. Ron Hubbard’s “A History of Man” | Scientology’s Master Spies | The mystery of the richest Scientologist and his wayward sons | Scientology’s shocking mistreatment of the mentally ill | The Underground Bunker’s Official Theme Song | The Underground Bunker FAQ

Watch our short videos that explain Scientology’s controversies in three minutes or less…

Check your whale level at our dedicated page for status updates, or join us at the Underground Bunker’s Facebook discussion group for more frivolity.

Our non-Scientology stories: Robert Burnham Jr., the man who inscribed the universe | Notorious alt-right inspiration Kevin MacDonald and his theories about Jewish DNA | The selling of the “Phoenix Lights” | Astronomer Harlow Shapley‘s FBI file | Sex, spies, and local TV news | Battling Babe-Hounds: Ross Jeffries v. R. Don Steele