Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/02/2022 10:15 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk

1 WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477)

whforman@winston.com
2 MARGARET E. DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353)
pedayton@winston.com
3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue
4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
5 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750

6 Attorneys for Defendant,

Church of Scientology International
7

8 ROBERT E. MANGELS (State Bar No. 48291)

rmangels@jmbm.com
9 MATTHEW D. HINKS (State Bar No. 200750)
mhinks@jmbm.com
10 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
Telephone: (310) 203-8080
12 Facsimile: (310) 203-0567

13 Attorneys for Defendant,

Religious Technology Center
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
16

17
VALERIE HANEY, CASE NO. 19STCV21210
18 Assigned to Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr.,
Plaintiff, Dept. 37
19
v. DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF
20 SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S
21 INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, and DAVID FOR RECONSIDERATION
22 MISCAVIGE; and DOES 1-25,
Date: March 15, 2022
23 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 37
24

25 Complaint Filed: June 18, 2019

26

27

28

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 1 I. INTRODUCTION

2 The Order of which Plaintiff seeks reconsideration was entered over two years ago. In that

3 time, Plaintiff sought to reverse the Order through a motion for reconsideration in this Court that

4 was denied, a petition for writ of mandate to the Court of Appeal that was summarily denied, a

5 petition for review to the California Supreme Court that was summarily denied, and a petition for

6 certiorari to the United States Supreme Court that was summarily denied.

7 Enough is enough. The Order is correct, and it warrants no further consideration.

8 Plaintiff’s meritless motion for reconsideration should be denied for the reasons set forth below.

9 II. ARGUMENT

10 Plaintiff moves for renewal of her motion for reconsideration filed on March 3, 2020 and

11 denied on August 11, 2020 (the “2020 Reconsideration Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil

12 Procedure Section 1008, subdivision (b). (Motion at 2.) The Motion must be denied.

13 A. The California Rules of Court Prohibit the Court from Granting

14 Plaintiff’s Motion

15 A motion for renewal under Section 1008, subdivision (b) must demonstrate “new or

16 different facts, circumstances, or law.” Civ. Proc. Code § 1008(b). Plaintiff’s only asserted basis

17 for renewal and reconsideration is “[n]ew law made by the California Court of Appeals on January

18 19, 2022” in Chrissie Carnell Bixler, et al. v. Superior Court for the State of California, Cty. of

19 Los Angeles (2022) No. B310559, 2022 WL 167792 (hereinafter the “Bixler Opinion”). (Motion

20 at 3.)

21 This ground – and therefore the Motion – fails at the outset. The Bixler Opinion is

22 unpublished, and therefore, it is not “law” – new or otherwise. Unpublished opinions are not

23 precedent. Humane Society of U.S. v. Superior Court, 214 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1266 n.30 (2013).

24 The California Rules of Court prohibit the Court from granting Plaintiff’s request to vacate the

25 Arbitration Order based on the Bixler Opinion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.1115, subdivision

26 (a) prohibits parties and courts from citing or relying upon opinions not certified for publication

27

28 1
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 or ordered published, except as specified by Rule 8.1115, subdivision (b).1 Cal. R. Ct. 8.1115(a);

2 People v. Wallace, 176 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1105 n.9 (2009) (declining to consider unpublished

3 opinion and noting “counsel should know better” than to cite an unpublished opinion); Humane

4 Society of U.S, 214 Cal.App.4th at 1266 n.30 (2013) (stating unpublished opinions are “not citable

5 as precedent” and disregarding the citation to and argument from the unpublished opinion).

6 Indeed, Plaintiff’s entire Motion violates Rule 8.1115 because it cites to – and relies exclusively

7 upon – an unpublished decision. See id.

8 The Bixler Opinion is not new law, and Plaintiff and the Court cannot rely on it. The

9 Motion should be denied on this ground alone.

10 B. The Motion Fails to Satisfy the Requirements of Code of Civil Procedure

11 Section 1008, Subdivision (b)

12 In addition to requiring “new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” a motion for

13 renewal under Section 1008, subdivision (b) also requires the moving party to “show[] by affidavit

14 what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made,

15 and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” Civ. Proc. Code

16 § 1008(b).

17 The attached affidavit, a declaration of Robert W. Thompson, does not set forth any of the

18 required facts. It states only that Mr. Thompson is licensed to practice law in the State of

19 California, is the founding partner of Thompson Law Offices, P.C., counsel of record for Plaintiffs

20 [sic] in this action, and that attached thereto is “a true and correct copy” of the Bixler Opinion.

21 (Declaration of Robert W. Thompson, ¶¶ 1 & 2; Motion at 7.) The Motion must be denied for

22 failure to comply with the provisions of Section 1008, subdivision (b). Civ. Proc. Code § 1008(e)

23 (“This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of

24

25
1
Plaintiff does not – and cannot – argue that Rule 8.1115, subdivision (b)’s exceptions apply. Rule
26 8.1115, subdivision (b) permits citation to unpublished opinions only when “the opinion is
relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel” or when “the
27 opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary action because it states reasons for a decision

28 affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action.” None of these exceptions
permit Plaintiff’s citation to and reliance upon the Bixler Opinion.
2
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 its orders and renewals of previous motions . . . [n]o application to reconsider any order or for the

2 renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to

3 this section.”); Kerns v. CSE Ins. Grp., 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 391 (2003).

4 C. Plaintiff Waived Any Argument That the First Amendment Bars

5 Arbitration of Her Claims and the Court Has Already Ruled the Argument

6 Is Not a Basis for Reconsideration

7 The Motion argues that the Bixler Opinion “justifies Plaintiff’s Motion to Renew the

8 Motion for Reconsideration because the Order compelling religious arbitration violates Plaintiff

9 Valerie Haney’s First Amendment right to exit religion.” (Motion at 4-5.) In opposing Defendants’

10 motions to compel arbitration, Plaintiff never argued in her brief or at the hearing that compelling

11 arbitration of her claims would violate her First Amendment rights. Therefore, she waived the

12 argument by failing to raise it in opposition to Defendants’ motions to compel. Plaintiff’s claim

13 that “when the Superior Court granted the Motion to Compel in its Minute Order, it refused to

14 address the First Amendment issues of whether Plaintiff could be compelled into a religious

15 arbitration despite no longer being a member of the Church” is patently false. (Motion at 5.) The

16 Court’s Order did not “refuse to address” an argument that Plaintiff never made in opposition

17 to the motions to arbitrate.

18 Plaintiff presented her argument based on the First Amendment for the first time in her

19 2020 Reconsideration Motion. In the 2020 Reconsideration Motion, Plaintiff argued that

20 “enforcement of these agreement [sic] would be a violation of the plaintiff’s right of free exercise

21 of religion under the federal and California constitutions” because she had exited the religion and

22 had a right to exit the religion. (3/3/2020 Motion for Reconsideration at 12-13 (initial

23 capitalizations omitted).) In opposition, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s First Amendment

24 arguments were “legal arguments based on known facts and existing law that could have been

25 asserted in Plaintiff’s original opposition, but were not,” and therefore, were not a proper basis for

26 reconsideration. (6/25/2020 Opposition at 18 (citing Midwest Television, Inc. v. Scott, Lancaster,

27 Mills & Atha, Inc., 205 Cal.App.3d 442, 454 (1988).) The Court denied the 2020 Reconsideration

28 Motion because “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate [] new facts, circumstances or law within the

3
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 meaning of section 1008.” (8/11/2020 Minute Order at 3.)

2 Plaintiff now seeks to “renew” the 2020 Reconsideration Motion based on the same First

3 Amendment argument that was rejected by the Court in August 2020. The argument was not a

4 proper ground for reconsideration over a year and a half ago, and it is not a proper ground for

5 reconsideration now. An unpublished opinion from the Court of Appeal cannot change the fact

6 that Plaintiff never timely raised the argument in this Court. Section 1008 is designed to prevent

7 such abusive practices. Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1100 (2005) (“Section 1008 is

8 designed to conserve the court’s resources by constraining litigants who would attempt to bring

9 the same motion over and over.”). The Motion should be denied.

10 D. Even if the Court Could Consider the Bixler Opinion, It Does Not Apply to

11 Plaintiff’s Case2

12 The Motion misrepresents the holding of the Bixler Order stating that “[i]n Bixler, the

13 Court of Appeals articulated that the First Amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion forbids

14 courts from compelling religious arbitration against individuals who have rejected the faith.

15 [Bixler, 2022 WL 167792], *11-12.” (Motion at 3.)

16 The Bixler Opinion’s holding is significantly more limited: “We hold that once petitioners

17 had terminated their affiliation with the Church, they were not bound to its dispute resolution

18 procedures to resolve the claims at issue here, which are based on alleged tortious conduct

19 occurring after their separation from the Church and do not implicate resolution of

20 ecclesiastical issues.” 2022 WL 167792, at *1 (emphasis added).3 This holding facially does not

21 apply to Plaintiff’s claims because they are based on conduct that occurred while she was a

22 member of the Church and they implicate ecclesiastical issues.

23 First, Plaintiff’s claims are not based on conduct occurring after her separation from the

24

25 2
Defendants cite the unpublished Bixler Opinion only to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court
26 should deny the Motion on the grounds stated above and refuse to consider Plaintiff’s argument
based on the unpublished and uncitable decision. See Cal. R. Ct. 8.1115(a); Sections II.A.-C.,
27 supra.
3
28 This holding is incorrect. Defendants have sought California Supreme Court review of the
erroneous, unpublished Bixler Opinion.
4
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 Church. Instead they “arise[] out of Plaintiff, Valerie Haney (“Plaintiff”)’s former tenure as a

2 member of the Church of Scientology International” and her service as staff for the Sea Org, the

3 religious order of the Scientology religion. (1/30/2020 Minute Order at 2; 12/20/2019 Farny

4 Declaration ISO Mot. to Compel Arbitration (“12/20/2019 Farny Decl.”) ¶¶ 27, 28.) Plaintiff’s

5 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) “contains extensive allegations regarding the Sea Org’s

6 allegedly improper and/or illegal practices, including allegations detailing trafficking of children

7 within the Sea Org, how the Sea Org subjects former members to a ‘routing out’ process, and how

8 the Defendants subject members and former members to other alleged coercion and control

9 tactics.” (1/30/2020 Minute Order at 2 (emphasis added).) As the Court correctly recognized, the

10 gravamen of the complaint is Plaintiff’s time in the Sea Org, and the causes of action that arose

11 after she left the Sea Org all relate to her service in the Sea Org. Indeed, when Plaintiff’s counsel

12 argued at the hearing on the motions to compel arbitration that Plaintiff’s claims “relate to actions

13 and events that occurred after she left the church and after she signed this agreement,” the Court

14 corrected him and observed that “a small part of the complaint is after the fact,” (Tr. 2:22-3:3), and

15 “most of [Plaintiff’s] complaint deals with her time in the Church,” (Tr. 9:5-7). The Court further

16 clarified that if the arbitrators determined some of the claims were not within the scope of the

17 agreements to arbitrate, the parties could return to the Court for adjudication of those claims. (Tr.

18 6:22-7:1, 9:17-22.)

19 By its own express terms, the Bixler Opinion does not apply to Plaintiff’s claims based on

20 conduct that occurred while she was a member of the Church and its religious order: “We do not

21 express an opinion . . . whether arbitration could properly be compelled if petitioners were to bring

22 claims for acts occurring while they were church members.” Bixler, 2022 WL 167792, at *15,

23 n.22. Accordingly, the Bixler Opinion itself disproves Plaintiff’s argument that the opinion

24 requires the Court to reverse its Arbitration Order.

25 Second, Plaintiff’s claims implicate resolution of ecclesiastical issues. Prior to her

26 departure from the Church, Plaintiff served as a member of the Sea Org, the religious order of the

27 Scientology religion. (FAC ¶ 49; 12/20/2019 Farny Decl. ¶¶ 27, 28.) The Sea Org is composed of

28 the most dedicated Scientologists – individuals who have committed their lives to the volunteer

5
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 service of their religion. (12/20/2019 Farny Decl. ¶ 27.) As befits a religious order, Plaintiff agreed

2 to submit to Church of Scientology discipline, serve without pay, and live communally. (Id., Ex.

3 10 at 2-4.) She had a “wide range of ministerial duties” that were “designed to fulfill and forward

4 the Sea Org’s religious purpose and mission.” (Id. at 4, ¶ 4.)

5 Plaintiff’s claims are based on her alleged working conditions, compensation, treatment,

6 and representations made to her during her tenure as a member of the Church’s religious order,

7 (see, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 44-67, 84-118, 137-41, 147-63), and alleged conduct she claims resulted from

8 her desire to exit or her exit from the religious order, (id. ¶¶ 68-83, 119-36, 142-46). Her FAC also

9 criticizes the Sea Org’s alleged working conditions and disciplinary practices more generally.

10 (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 15-28.) These claims, concerning the terms and conditions of service in the

11 Church’s religious order, strike at the heart of church governance – and undeniably implicate

12 ecclesiastical issues. “[T]he authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful – a

13 matter strictly ecclesiastical, [citation] – is the church’s alone.” See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical

14 Lutheran Church & School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S 171, 194-95 (2012) (citing Kedroff v. Saint

15 Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 119 (1952));

16 Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States & Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 724

17 (1976) (the First Amendment “permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own

18 rules and regulations for internal discipline and government”); Our Lady of Guadalupe School v.

19 Morrissey-Berru, 140 S.Ct. 2049, 2060 (2020) (churches have the “authority to select, supervise,

20 and if necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities”).4

21 Even if the Court could consider the Bixler Opinion, it is not informative of the

22 enforceability of the agreements to arbitrate Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s claims are based on

23 alleged conduct occurring while she was still a member of the Church and they implicate

24

25
4
The FAC also criticizes the Scientology religious practice of auditing, (id. ¶¶ 29-31), and devotes
26 pages to a false description of an imagined doctrine of the Church, (id. ¶¶ 32-43), which the
Eleventh Circuit has already held presents a non-justiciable controversy, see Garcia v. Church of
27 Scientology Flag Srvc. Org., Inc., No. 18-13452, 2021 WL 5074465, at *9 (Nov. 2, 2021) (holding

28 conflicting presentations of Scientology doctrine cannot be resolved by a court without violating

the First Amendment).
6
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 ecclesiastical issues; therefore, the Bixler Opinion’s holding does not apply here. See Bixler, 2022

2 WL 167792, at *1, *15, n.22; id. at *11-*12 (“If the religious relationship has been terminated . . .

3 the arbitration clause does not survive to cover disputes arising from future non-religious

4 tortious conduct.”) (emphasis added).

5 E. The Arbitration Order Is Correct

6 In any event, reconsideration is not required because the Arbitration Order is correct.

7 Plaintiff’s Motion fails to alert the Court to an additional decision concerning Scientology

8 religious arbitration that occurred after the Court’s Order compelling arbitration here. In Garcia v.

9 Church of Scientology Flag Srvc. Org., Inc., No. 18-13452, 2021 WL 5074465 (Nov. 2, 2021),5

10 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court for the Middle District of Florida’s orders (1)

11 compelling Scientology religious arbitration of a dispute between two former members of the

12 Church of Scientology and two church entities and (2) denying a motion to vacate the resulting

13 arbitration award. In Garcia, the former-parishioner plaintiffs sought refunds of donations and

14 payments they had made to two church entities. 2021 WL 5074465, at *1. As here, the Garcias’

15 agreements required arbitration of “‘any dispute, claim or controversy’ between the Garcias and

16 ‘the Church, any other Scientology church, any other organization which espouses, presents,

17 propagates or practices the Scientology religion, or any person employed by any such entity,’”

18 through “‘binding religious arbitration in accordance with the arbitration procedures of Church of

19 Scientology International.’” Id., 2021 WL 5074465, at *2. “[T]he agreements provided that the

20 arbitration would ‘be conducted in accordance with Scientology principles’ and that all arbitrators

21 would be ‘Scientologists in good standing with the Mother Church.’” Id. The district court

22 enforced the agreements according to their terms and compelled religious arbitration of the

23 plaintiffs’ claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

24 The Bixler Opinion recognizes that it reaches a different result than Garcia. In a footnote,

25 the Bixler Opinion distinguishes Garcia, stating that “we recognize that the Garcias had sought the

26

27 5
Rule 8.1115 only prohibits citation to unpublished California opinions. Unpublished federal
28 opinions are citable as persuasive, although not precedential, authority. Pacific Shore Funding v.
Lozo, 138 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1352 n.6 (2006).
7
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 return of funds donated while they were members. The case therefore did not consider whether

2 former members could be compelled to arbitrate claims arising from torts committed after they

3 had left the Church.” Bixler, 2022 WL 167792, at *9, n.19 (emphasis added).

4 To the extent any “new law” informs the Court’s analysis in compelling arbitration, it is

5 Garcia not Bixler. The Arbitration Order is correctly decided, and the Motion should be denied.

6 III. CONCLUSION

7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s “Renewed” Motion for Reconsideration should be

8 denied.

10 Dated: March 2, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

11
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
12

13 By:
William H. Forman
14
Attorneys for Defendant
15 DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL
16

17
Dated: March 2, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
18

19 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP

20

21
By: UH
Matthew D. Hinks

22 Attorneys for Defendant

DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
23 CENTER
24

25

26

27

28

8
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Valerie Haney v. Church of Scientology International, et al.
2 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV21210
3

4 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to

5 the within action. My business address is Winston & Strawn LLP, 333 S. Grand Avenue, Los

6 Angeles, CA 90071-1543. On March 2, 2022, I served the following document:

7
DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS
8 TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
9
by electronically transmitting a copy of the document listed above via email to the
10 addresses as set forth below, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(d)
and California Rule of Court 2.253(b)(1)(A) or court order.
11
by a court-approved electronic filing service provider, by electronically transmitting a
12 true and correct copy of the above document to the electronic filing service provider’s
system, which in turn electronically transmits the document or sends electronic notice
13 of service with hyperlinks to the document via the electronic mail system to the
recipients set forth below, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(d) and
14 California Rule of Court Rule 2.253(b)(1)(A) or court order.

15 PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

17 foregoing is true and correct.

18
Signed:
19 Pamela Tanigawa

20 Dated: March 2, 2022

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 1 SERVICE LIST
Valerie Haney v. Church of Scientology International, et al.
2 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV21210
3

4
Robert W. Thompson
5 Thompson Law Offices, P.C.
700 Airport Blvd., Suite 160
6 Burlingame, CA 94010
Email: bobby@tlopc.com
7

8 Graham E. Berry
Law Office of Graham E. Berry
9 3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
10 Email: grahamberryesq@gmail.com

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION