Supreme Court of California

Jorge E. Navarrete, Clerk and Executive Officer of the Court

Electronically
Electronically
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
on 3/23/2022
on 3/23/2022
by Celia
atWong,
10:03:04
Deputy
AM Clerk

March 23, 2022

VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE

Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye

Jorge E. Navarrete, Court Clerk
California Supreme Court
Earl Warren Building
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Chrissie Carnell Bixler, et al. v. Superior Court for Court of Los Angeles
Supreme Court Case No. S273276 and Court of Appeal No. B310559

Dear Chief Justice,

Plaintiffs/Petitioners Chrissie Carnell Bixler et al. requested that the Court of Appeals,
pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1120, publish its recent First Amendment
opinion in this case. The appellate court then sent the issue to this Court.
Plaintiffs/Petitioners are renewing their request for publication in light of a recent decision by
the trial court in Valerie Haney v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No.
19STCV21210, which ignores the Court of Appeals’ decision and orders another ex-member
of the Church of Scientology into religious arbitration controlled by the faith. The Haney
trial court failed to adopt the First Amendment reasoning of the Court of Appeals and stated
that it was not bound by the Court of Appeals’ opinion because it is not published. See
Attachment A, Haney trial court order. Plaintiffs/Petitioners now seek publication to prevent
this from happening again to victims of religious organizations that left the faith and seek
civil justice.

This case involves the question of whether a religious believer has a right to exit a
faith she rejects, including a right to refuse to engage in religious arbitration to which she
agreed as a prerequisite to joining the faith. There is no meaningful right to choose one’s
religion if there is not an ability to exit a religion. Right now, Defendants/Appellants are
arguing in other courts that they have a constitutional right to trap a victim in their religious
arbitration system and to avoid civil justice.

1
 The opinion at issue reversed the trial court’s decision to force the
Plaintiffs/Petitioners into religious arbitration controlled by the Defendants/Appellants after
they reported rapes by a member to the police and after they were harassed for reporting.
Plaintiffs/Petitioners are interested in publishing this opinion, because it secures their
fundamental First Amendment rights to choose their faith and makes clear their rights to
obtain civil justice from this religious organization that harassed them.

As was previously laid out in Plaintiffs’ correspondence to the Court requesting

publication, this opinion involves a legal issue of continuing public interest, applies an
existing rule of law to a set of facts different from those stated in other published opinions,
and explains and clarifies an existing rule of law. See Plaintiffs’ original request for
publication, Attached as Exhibit B.

This Court found in its most recent opinion that the First Amendment rights of the
Plaintiffs/Petitioners would be violated if they were compelled to a religious arbitration after
leaving a religious organization for tortious conduct that occurred after they had left. There
are countless others throughout the State of California who face their Constitutional First
Amendment rights being violated by the unconstitutional practice of forcing non-believers
into a religious arbitration proceeding for tortious conduct that occurred after they left the
organization, including, but not limited to, former members of the Church of Scientology.
Most recently, a trial court in Los Angeles County in the matter of Valerie Haney v. Church of
Scientology International, et al., No. 19STCV21210 relied on the fact that the opinion in this
case was not published as a basis for refusing to reconsider its order compelling the
Plaintiffs/Petitioners to religious arbitration despite claims for tortious conduct and
harassment, like the Plaintiffs in this case, that occurred after she left Scientology. In doing
so the trial court held:

“However, the motion is not well taken because it fails to present any ‘new’ laws
to satisfy Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a). Under California Rules of Court, rule
8.1115, ‘an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate
division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be
cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action.’ Thus, because the
motion solely relies on an unpublished court opinion, Plaintiff does not present
any law that may be relied on by this court.” See Exhibit A.

As it stands right now, the Plaintiff in Valerie Haney will have her Constitutional First
Amendment rights violated should this Court’s most recent opinion in this case not be
published such that she can rely upon same and avoid being forced into a religious
proceeding despite not being a member of the Church of Scientology. There is no doubt
others are and/or will face their Constitutional rights being violated as well. As such,

2
Plaintiffs/Petitioners again respectfully request this Honorable Court publish the opinion in
this case, given the breadth and depth of Constitutional rights being trampled on
throughout the State should it remain unpublished.

This Court’s opinion in Bixler should be published in the Official Reports because it
serves at least four of the purposes outlined in California Rule of Court 8.1105(c): it applies
the law to new facts, explains an existing rule of law, advances a new clarification of a
provision of the United States Constitution, and involves a legal issue of continuing public
interest. (Cal. Rules of Court 8.1105(c)(2), (3), (4), and (6)). Courts, attorneys, and any citizen
seeking to exercise and protect their First Amendment rights would benefit from this Court’s
guidance on the above issues.

Plaintiffs/Petitioners, therefore, again respectfully request that this Honorable Court

order the opinion certified for publication.

Very truly yours,

/s/

Bobby Thompson

Enclosures

3
 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 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

10

11 VALERIE HANEY, CASE NO. 19STCV21210

Assigned to Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr.,
12 Plaintiff, Dept. 37
13 v. NOTICE OF ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
14 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RECONSIDERATION
INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS
15 TECHNOLOGY CENTER, and DAVID
MISCAVIGE; and DOES 1-25,
16 Complaint Filed: June 18, 2019
Defendants.
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March 15, 2022, at 8:30 a.m., Plaintiff Valerie

3 Haney’s Renewed Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion

4 to Compel Arbitration was heard in the above-entitled court before the Honorable Richard J.

5 Burdge, Jr. William H. Forman appeared on behalf of Defendant Church of Scientology

6 International. Robert E. Mangels appeared on behalf of Defendant Religious Technology Center.

7 There was no appearance for Plaintiff.

8 For the reasons stated in the Court’s Tentative Order (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and the

9 reasons stated on the record by the Court, the Court adopted the Tentative Order as its final order

10 and DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

11

12 Dated: March 15, 2022 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

13

14 By:
William H. Forman
15
Attorneys for Defendant
16 DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
2
NOTICE OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Exhibit A
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 Valerie Haney v. Church of Scientology International, et al.

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 15, 2022, I served the following document:

7 NOTICE OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

8

9

by electronically transmitting a copy of the document listed above via email to the
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.
10

11

by a court-approved electronic filing service provider, by electronically transmitting a
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
of service with hyperlinks to the document via the electronic mail system to the
12 recipients set forth below, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(d) and
California Rule of Court Rule 2.253(b)(1)(A) or court order.
13
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
14
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
15
foregoing is true and correct.
16

17 Signed:
Pamela Tanigawa
18
Dated: March 15, 2022
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 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
THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C.
5 700 Airport Blvd., Suite 160
Burlingame, CA 94010
6 Email: bobby@tlopc.com

7 Graham E. Berry
LAW OFFICE OF GRAHAM E. BERRY
8 3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
9 Email: grahamberryesq@gmail.com

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Valerie Haney

11
Robert E. Mangels
12 Matthew D. Hinks
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
13 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
14 Emails: rmangels@jmbm.com
mhinks@jmbm.com
15

16 Attorneys for Defendant Religious Technology Center

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
NOTICE OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AmericasActive:16803519.1
VIA U.S. MAIL

Hon. Laurence D. Rubin, Presiding Justice

Hon. Lamar W. Baker, Associate Justice
Hon. Carl H. Moor, Associate Justice
Hon. Dorothy C. Kim, Associate Justice
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division Five
Ronald Reagan State Building
300 S. Spring Street
2nd Floor, North Tower
Los Angeles, CA 90013

Re: Chrissie Carnell Bixler, et al. v. Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, No. B310559 (filed Jan. 19, 2022)

Dear Justices Rubin, Baker, Moor, and Kim:

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1120, Plaintiffs and Petitioners Chrissie
Carnell Bixler hereby respectfully requests that this Court order its recent opinion in in this case
be published. The opinion reversed the trial court’s decision that the plaintiffs/petitioners are
bound by an arbitration agreement entered into when they were members of the Church of
Scientology. Plaintiffs and Petitioners Chrissie Carnell Bixler are interested in publishing this
opinion because it protects their First Amendment rights to exit a religion, and because it will
help protect their rights in the future.

As set forth below, this opinion involves a legal issue of continuing public interest,
applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts different from those stated in other published
opinions, and explains and clarifies an existing rule of law. Accordingly, the opinion warrants
publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1105).

///

///

///

Grounds for Publication

 California Rule of Court 8.1105 dictates that an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a
superior court appellate division should be certified for publication in the Official Reports if the
opinion:

(1) Establishes a new rule of law;

(2) Applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts significantly different from
those stated in published opinions;

(3) Modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law;

(4) Advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a

provision of a constitution, statute, ordinance, or court rule;

(5) Addresses or creates an apparent conflict in the law;

(6) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest;

(7) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the

development of a common law rule or the legislative or judicial history of a
provision of a constitution, statute, or other written law;

(8) Invokes a previously overlooked rule of law, or reaffirms a principle of law

not applied in a recently reported decision; or

(9) Is accompanied by a separate opinion concurring or dissenting on a legal

issue, and publication of the majority and separate opinions would make a
significant contribution to the development of the law.

As outlined below, this Court’s opinion in this matter serves, at least, four of the above
purposes delineated by Rule 8.1105.

The opinion applies existing law to a new set of facts (Cal. Rules of Court 8.1105(c)(2)).

Bixler, et al. v. Church of Scientology International, et al, Los Angeles County Super. Ct.
No. 19STCV29458 involves former members of the Church of Scientology who, at the times of
their membership, signed Religious Services Agreements which included arbitration clauses
indicating that all disputes with the Church would be resolved according to the Church’s own
“Ethics, Justice, and Binding Religious Arbitration system.” This Court, in reversing the trial
court’s decision, held that the Plaintiffs “have a constitutional right to disassociate from a
religious community” and “[h]aving exercised this right to disassociate, they are no longer
members subject to the Church’s religion and rules, which otherwise would bind them to
Scientology dispute resolution for life.” (Bixler, p. 35). No other Court of Appeal opinion has
been as explicit on this point as it relates to arbitration agreements with religious
organizations.

The opinion usefully explains an existing rule of law (C.R.C. 8.1105(c)(3)).

Appellants/Defendants argued, and the trial court agreed, that because the arbitration
agreement was part of a religious agreement to participate in religious arbitration, the court
could not review their arbitration procedures for “fairness” and asserted that its right to govern
relations with its members was “all but unreviewable” pursuant to the First Amendment and
the doctrine of religious abstention, which compels courts to abstain from resolving religious
issues. (Bixler, p. 29). However, this Court clarified that “[r]eligious abstention has its roots in
consent – specifically, an individual’s voluntary membership in, or employment by, a church…
Here, petitioners withdrew their consent when they left the faith. The notion of consent no
longer exists as the necessary predicate for religious abstention.” (Id., p. 33). The Court further
explained that refusing to enforce the religious arbitration agreement does not reflect hostility
to religion, because the case involved two free exercise rights: Scientology’s First Amendment
right to resolve disputes with its members without court intervention and Plaintiff/Petitioner’s
right to leave the faith. (Id., p. 35). The Court specifically and clearly identified the nature of
petitioners’ First Amendment right when it articulated “petitioners have a constitutional right
to disassociate from a religious community. Having exercised this right to disassociate, they
are no longer members subject to the Church’s religion and rules, which otherwise would bind
them to Scientology dispute resolution for life.” (Ibid.)

The opinion advances a new interpretation of a provision of the United States Constitution
(C.R.C. 8.1105(c)(4)).

Defendants/Appellants argued that Plaintiffs/Petitioners agreed to be bound by

Scientology dispute resolution procedures forever as a condition of receiving religious
services. As stated by this Court, this would result in “eternal submission to a religious forum –
a sub silencio waiver of Plaintiffs’/Petitioners’ constitutional right to extricate themselves from
the faith.” While the trial court found that this result comports with the First Amendment, this
Court found that the Constitution forbids such a result as violative of Plaintiffs/Petitioner’s First
Amendment rights. (Bixler, p. 37).

A published appellate opinion clarifying that the Constitution forbids enforcement of

such a broad and extensive religious agreement against former members of a church would
prevent other individuals from suffering the same violation of their First Amendment rights.

///

The opinion involves a legal issue of continuing public interest (C.R.C. 8.1105(c)(6).
 A published opinion employing sufficient intellectual rigor which comprehensively
analyzes the enforceability of a religious agreement with a religious organization against an
individual who has disassociated from the religious organization will provide useful and
essential guidance to trial courts hearing motions to compel arbitration. It will promote
certainty and consistency in the law. Absent publication, the issue will have to be litigated
again, wasting judicial resources and unnecessarily generate uncertainty in the law. Perhaps
most importantly, publication will insure that trial and appellate courts will contribute to the
development of this very important area of the law. Depublication, on the other hand, and will
deprive the judiciary at large from the legitimate and valuable contribution our case provides.

Protecting the First Amendment rights of individuals who have left religious
communities that would otherwise attempt to bind them to the same religious rules they have
disclaimed is a matter of continuing public interest.

Conclusion

This Court’s opinion in Bixler should be published in the Official Reports because it
serves at least four of the purposes outlined in California Rule of Court 8.1105(c): it applies the
law to new facts, explains an existing rule of law, advances a new clarification of a provision of
the United States Constitution, and involves a legal issue of continuing public interest. (Cal.
Rules of Court 8.1105(c)(2), (3), (4), and (6)). Courts, attorneys, and any citizen seeking to
exercise and protect their First Amendment rights would benefit from this Court’s guidance on
the above issues.

We therefore respectfully request that this Court order the opinion certified for
publication.

Very truly yours,

/s/

Bobby Thompson
 DECLARATION OF SERVICE

Chrissie Carnel Bixler, et al. v. Church of Scientology International, et al.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 19STCV29458
Supreme Court Case No. S267740
I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 700 Airport Blvd., Suite 160,
Burlingame, California 94010.
On February 8, 2022, I served the within document(s) described as:
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PUBLICATION

on the interested parties in this action as stated below:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

(MAIL) I enclosed the documents in sealed envelope(s) addressed above. I am readily

familiar with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing.
Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day
with postage thereon fully prepaid at Burlingame, California, in the ordinary course of
business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for
mailing in affidavit.
(OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in sealed envelope(s) addressed
above provided by an overnight delivery carrier. I placed the envelope(s) for collection
and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight
delivery carrier.
(FACSIMILE) I caused such document(s) to be delivered by facsimile pursuant to court
order or agreement of the parties. The1 facsimile machine I used complied with Rule
2.301(3) and no error was reported by the machine.

X (ELECTRONIC MEANS) I caused such document(s) to be delivered by electronic service

pursuant to court order or agreement of the parties.

(PERSONAL DELIVERY) I caused such document(s) to be personally served on the person

listed above.

Executed on February 8, 2022, at Burlingame, California. I declare under penalty of

perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Robert W. Thompson /s/

(Type or print name) (Signature)
 SERVICE LIST

Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Robert W. Thompson, Esq.

Casey A. Gee, Esq.
Thompson Law Offices, P.C.
700 Airport Blvd., Suite 160
Burlingame, CA 94010
Email: bobby@tlopc.com
Email: casey@tlopc.com
Email: alicia@tlopc.com

Brian D. Kent, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Gaetano D’Andrea, Esq.(Admitted Pro Hac
Vice)
M. Stewart Ryan, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice)
Laffey, Bucci, & Kent, LLP
1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Email: bkent@lbk-law.com
Email: gdandrea@laffeybuccikent.com
Email: sryan@laffeybuccikent.com
Email: vzeoli@laffeybuccikent.com
Email: jkerr@ laffeybuccikent.com

Jeffrey P. Fritz, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Soloff & Zervanos, P.C.
1525 Locust Street, 8th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Email: jfritz@lawsz.com
Email: lgoodfellow@lawsz.com
Email: jgilbert@lawsz.com

Marci Hamilton, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac

Vice)
University of Pennsylvania
Fox-Fels Building
3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Email: hamilton.marci@gmail.com

Graham E. Berry (SBN: 128503)

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

Defendants’ Counsel

William H. Forman, Esq.

David C. Scheper, Esq.
Margaret E. Dayton, Esq.
Winston & Strawn, LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Email: whforman@winston.com
Email: dscheper@winston.com
Email: pedayton@winston.com
Attorneys for Defendants Church of
Scientology International and Celebrity
Centre International

Robert W. Mangels, Esq.

Matthew D. Hinks, Esq.
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Email: rmangels@jmbm.com
Email: mhinks@jmbm.com
Attorneys for Defendant Religious
Technology Center

Andrew B. Brettler
Lavely & Singer, P.C.
2049 Century Park E., Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90067
Email: abrettler@lavelysinger.com
Attorney for Defendant Daniel Masterson

7
8
 Supreme Court of California
Jorge E. Navarrete, Clerk and Executive Officer of the Court
Electronically FILED on 3/23/2022 by Celia Wong, Deputy Clerk

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Supreme Court of California
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Supreme Court of California
Case Name: BIXLER v. S.C. (CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL)
Case Number: S273276
Lower Court Case Number: B310559

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action.

2. My email address used to e-serve: bobby@tlopc.com

3. I served by email a copy of the following document(s) indicated below:

Title(s) of papers e-served:

Filing Type Document Title
LETTER 2022.03.23 Letter to the Chief Justice
Service Recipients:
Person Served Email Address Type Date / Time
Ford Greene fgreene@wenet.net e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
Attorney at Law Serve AM
Patricia Waters pwaters@winston.com e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
Winston & Strawn LLP Serve AM
Pamela Tanigawa PTanigawa@winston.com e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
Winston & Strawn LLP Serve AM
William Forman WHForman@winston.com e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
Winston & Strawn LLP Serve AM
150477
Robert Thompson bobby@tlopc.com e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
Thompson Law Offices, P.C. Serve AM
250038
Frederick Bennett fbennett@lacourt.org e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
Superior Court of Los Angeles County Serve AM
47455
Andrew Brettler abrettler@lavelysinger.com e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
Lavely & Singer Serve AM
262928
Matthew Hinks mhinks@jmbm.com e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP Serve AM
200750
Guillermo Ahumada chief- e- 3/23/2022 10:03:03
The I.M.F.C. chaplain@theimfc.org Serve AM

This proof of service was automatically created, submitted and signed on my behalf through my agreements with
TrueFiling and its contents are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
3/23/2022
Date

/s/Robert Thompson
Signature

Thompson, Robert (250038)

Last Name, First Name (PNum)

Thompson Law Offices, P.C.

Law Firm