Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/09/2020 09:49 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Panganiban,Deputy Clerk

1 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP


WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477)
2 wforman@scheperkim.com
DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174)
3 dscheper@scheperkim.com
MARGARET E. DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353)
4 pdayton@scheperkim.com
JEFFREY L. STEINFELD (State Bar No. 294848)
5 jsteinfeld@scheperkim.com
800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor
6 Los Angeles, California 90017-2701
Telephone: (213) 613-4655
7 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

8 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology


International and Church of Scientology Celebrity
9 Centre International

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

12

13 CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC CASE NO. 19STCV29458


BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE Assigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield,
14 BOBETTE RIALES; and JANE DOE #2, Dept. 57

15 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF


SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND
16 v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
CELEBRITY CENTRE
17 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’S SUPPLEMENTAL
INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS OPPOSITION TO APPLICATIONS FOR
18 TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE
19 INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE; (1) BRIAN D. KENT;
DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1-25, (2) GAETANO D’ANDREA;
20 (3) M. STEWART RYAN;
Defendants. (4) JEFFREY P. FRITZ; AND
21 (5) MARCI HAMILTON

22 Date: April 22, 2020


Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 Dept.: 57

24 Complaint Filed: August 22, 2019


Trial Date: Not yet set
25

26

27

28

CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 Defendants Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and Celebrity Centre International

2 (“CC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit this supplemental opposition to the applications

3 for admission pro hac vice filed by out-of-state lawyers (1) Brian D. Kent, (2) Gaetano D’Andrea,

4 (3) M. Stewart Ryan, (4) Jeffrey P. Fritz, and (5) Marci Hamilton on behalf of Plaintiffs in the

5 above-entitled lawsuit (collectively, “Applicants” and the “Applications”).

6 As this Court recognized in its March 11, 2020 tentative order, Applicants’ pro hac vice

7 Applications were defective because they failed to satisfy California Rule of Court 9.40’s

8 requirements. (See 3/11/2020 Order at 2-3.) Rather than deny the Applications, this Court gave

9 Applicants the opportunity to file supplemental declarations to satisfy Rule 9.40’s requirements for

10 admission pro hac vice. Despite filing such declarations, Applicants still fail to satisfy Rule 9.40.

11 1. Brian D. Kent – Kent’s Application remains deficient for multiple reasons. First, neither the

12 original Application nor Kent’s supplemental declaration contain his residential address as

13 required by Rule 9.40(d)(1). See Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(1) (“application must state: (1) The

14 applicant’s residence and office address”) (emphasis added). Second, Kent’s Application does not

15 satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(2)’s requirement that the applicant list the “the courts to which the applicant

16 has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission.” Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2) (emphasis

17 added). Kent’s Application does not list any court to which he is admitted practice, and does not

18 list the date, or even the month of such admission. Rather, Kent’s Application only identifies

19 States in which he is admitted to practice and the year of his admission. Because Kent failed to list

20 the specific courts to which he is admitted to practice, and the specific dates of his admission to

21 those courts, his Application fails to satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(2).

22 2. Gaetano D’Andrea – This Court should deny D’Andrea’s Application because it contains

23 contradictory sworn statements and fails to comply with Rule 9.40. The two sworn declarations

24 D’Andrea submitted to this Court contradict each other. D’Andrea’s December 17, 2019 sworn

25 declaration states that he has “filed motions in the States of California, West Virginia, New York,

26 and New Jersey in the preceding two years to appear pro hac vice.” (12/17/2019 D’Andrea Decl.

27 ¶ 5.) However, his March 12, 2020 declaration swears that he “filed no other pro hac vice

28

2
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 applications in California in the preceding two years.” (3/12/2020 D’Andrea Decl. ¶ 2).1

2 Moreover, neither D’Andrea’s original Application nor his supplemental declaration contain his

3 residential address as required by Rule 9.40(d)(1). Finally, D’Andrea’s Application does not list

4 the dates of admission to the courts in which he is admitted to practice. See Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2).

5 3. M. Stewart Ryan – This Court should deny Ryan’s Application because it fails to comply with

6 multiple requirements of Rule 9.40. Despite filing a supplemental declaration, Ryan’s Application

7 still fails to list his residential address in violation of Rule 9.40(d)(1). Ryan’s Application also

8 does not list the specific courts to which he is admitted, or the specific dates of his admission as

9 required by Rule 9.40(d)(2).

10 4. Jeffrey P. Fritz – This Court should deny Fritz’s Application because it fails to comply with

11 multiple requirements of Rule 9.40. Despite filing a supplemental declaration, Fritz’s Application

12 still fails to list his residential address in violation of Rule 9.40(d)(1). Fritz’s Application also does

13 not list the specific courts to which he is admitted, or the specific dates of his admission as

14 required by Rule 9.40(d)(2).

15 5. Marci Hamilton – This Court should deny Hamilton’s Application because it fails to comply

16 with Rule 9.40’s requirements. As with the other Applications, Hamilton’s Application fails to

17 satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(2)’s requirement that the applicant list the specific “courts to which the

18 applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission.” Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2)

19 (emphasis added). Hamilton’s Application only identifies States in which she is admitted and the

20 year of admission. The Application does not list any court to which Hamilton is admitted and the

21 date, or even month, of such admission. Hamilton’s Application also fails to list her University of

22 Pennsylvania office address, despite it appearing on the caption of the Complaint and First

23 Amended Complaint. See Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(1) (requiring that the applicant “must” provide their

24 “office address”). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny

25 Applicants’ Pro Hac Vice Applications.

26

27 1
This Court recognized that D’Andrea’s December 17, 2019 declaration was “entirely contrary”
28 to the reply brief Plaintiffs submitted in support of the Applications. (3/11/2020 Tentative Order
at 3, fn. 1.)
3
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 DATED: April 9, 2020 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
WILLIAM H. FORMAN
2 DAVID C. SCHEPER
3 MARGARET E. DAYTON
JEFFREY L. STEINFELD
4

5
By: /s/ William H. Forman
6
William H. Forman
7 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology
International and Church of Scientology Celebrity
8 Centre International

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 Chrissie Carnell Bixler v. Church of Scientology International, et al.


LASC Case No. 19STCV29458
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
5 employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 800 West
Sixth Street, 18th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2701.
6
On April 9, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
7 DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL’S SUPPLEMENTAL
8 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;
9 AND (5) MARCI HAMILTON on the interested parties in this action as follows:

10 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

11 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the


document(s) to be sent from e-mail address ptanigawa@scheperkim.com to the persons at the e-
12 mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
13
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person(s) listed in the
14 Service List by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to ASAP Legal Solutions for
e-service.
15
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
16 foregoing is true and correct.

17 Executed on April 9, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.

18

19
Pamela Tanigawa
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 SERVICE LIST
Chrissie Carnell Bixler v. Church of Scientology International, et al.
2 LASC Case No. 19STCV29458

3
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE AND E-MAIL Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHRISSIE CARNELL
4 BIXLER; CEDRIC BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE
Robert W. Thompson DOE #1; MARIE BOBETTE RIALES and
5 Kristen A. Vierhaus JANE DOE #2
THOMPSON LAW OFFICES
6 700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
Burlingame, CA 94010
7 Telephone: 650-513-6111
Facsimile: 650-513-6071
8 Emails: bobby@tlopc.com
kris@tlopc.com
9
Graham E. Berry
10 Law Office of Graham E. Berry
3384 McLaughlin Ave.
11 Los Angeles, CA 90066-2005
Telephone: 310-745-3771
12 Facsimile: 310-745-3771
Email: grahamberryesq@gmail.com
13
ATTORNEYS NOT ADMITTED TO THE
14 CALIFORNIA BAR – SERVED VIA E-MAIL
ONLY AS A COURTESY
15
Brian D. Kent
16 Gaetano D’Andrea
M. Stewart Ryan
17 LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT LLP
1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
18 Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215-399-9255
19 Facsimile: 215-241-8700
Emails: bkent@lbk-law.com
20 GDandrea@laffeybuccikent.com
sryan@laffeybuccikent.com
21
Jeffrey P. Fritz
22 SOLOFF & ZERVANOS P C
1525 Locust Street, 8th Floor
23 Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215-732-2260
24 Facsimile: 215-732-2289
Email: jfritz@lawsz.com
25

26

27

28

6
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 Marci Hamilton
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
2 Fox-Fels Building
3814 Walnut Street
3 Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: 215-353-8984
4 Facsimile: 215-493-1094
Email: hamilton.marci@gmail.com
5
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE AND E-MAIL Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS
6 Robert E. Mangels TECHNOLOGY CENTER
Matthew D. Hinks
7 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER
& MITCHELL LLP
8 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
9 Telephone: 310-203-8080
Facsimile: 310-203-0567
10 Emails: rmangels@jmbm.com
mhinks@jmbm.com
11
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE AND E-MAIL Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendant
12 Jeffrey K. Riffer DAVID MISCAVIGE
ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN
13 GARTSIDE LLP
10345 West Olympic Boulevard
14 Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: 310-746-4400
15 Facsimile: 310-746-4499
Email: jriffer@elkinskalt.com
16
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE AND E-MAIL Attorneys for Defendant
17 Andrew B. Brettler DANIEL MASTERSON
LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL
18 CORPORATION
2049 Century Park E 2400
19 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-556-3501
20 Facsimile: 310-556-3615
Email: abrettler@lavelysinger.com
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS