B307452

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE

VALERIE HANEY,
Plaintiff and Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent,

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
Defendants and Real Parties in Interest

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 19STCV21210

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

HONORABLE RICHARD J. BURDGE, DEPARTMENT 37

RESPONSE TO AMICUS LETTER OF NATIONAL CRIME

VICTIM BAR ASSOCIATION

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER &

*WILLIAM H. FORMAN (BAR NO. 150477)
DAVID C. SCHEPER (BAR NO. 120174)
MARGARET E. DAYTON (BAR NO. 274353)
800 WEST SIXTH STREET, 18TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2701
(213) 613-4655 • FAX: (213) 613-4656
wforman@scheperkim.com
MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS (BAR NO. 48291)
*MATTHEW D. HINKS (BAR NO. 200750)
1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 • FAX: (310) 203-0567
mhinks@jmbm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AND REAL ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AND REAL
PARTY IN INTEREST CHURCH OF PARTY IN INTEREST RELIGIOUS
SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

68361999v1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................5

II. RESPONSE TO AMICUS BRIEF OF NATIONAL

CRIME VICTIM BAR ASSOCIATION ............................... 10
A. Amicus Curiae Are Limited to the Issues and
Evidence Presented by the Parties to the
Appellate Proceedings ............................................... 10
B. NCVBA’s Amicus Letter Fails to Establish that
Petitioner Has Properly Alleged a Claim
Against Real Parties, Viable or Otherwise............... 11
C. NCVBA’s Arguments Concerning the Nature of
the Arbitration Fail to Address the Actual
Agreement and Are Therefore Baseless ................... 12
D. NCVBA’s Arguments Concerning Compelled

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Religious Arbitration Are Not Properly Before
This Court and Should Be Rejected .......................... 16
E. NCVBA Fails To Establish That Guidance on
Any Issue Is Needed on Writ Review ....................... 17

III. CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 18

68361999v1 2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

California Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. State Water Res.

Control Bd.,
4 Cal. 5th 1032 (2018) ......................................................... 11, 18

Conference of Evangelical Methodist Church v.

Evangelical Methodist Church,
807 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Ga. 2011) ..................................... 14

Easterly v. Heritage Christian Sch.,

2009 WL 2750099 (S.D. Ind. 2009) .......................................... 14

Eggert v. Pac. States Sav. & Loan Co.,

57 Cal. App. 2d 239 (1943) ....................................................... 11

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org.,
Inc.,
No. 8:13-CV-220-T-27TBM, 2018 WL 3439638
(M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018) .......................................................... 16

Gear v. Webster,
258 Cal. App. 2d 57 (1968) ....................................................... 15

Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.,

28 Cal. 3d 807 (1981) ................................................................ 16

Headley v. Church of Scientology International,

687 F (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 17

Hosanna Tabor v. Equal Empl. Opp. Comm’n

(2012) 565 U.S. 171 ................................................................... 15

Independent Assn. of Mailbox Center Owners, Inc. v.

Superior Court,
133 Cal. App. 4th 396 (2005) .................................................... 19

68361999v1 3
Jane Doe v. Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization, Inc., et al.,
No. 2019-CA-027633-01 (Miami-Dade Co. FL.,Div.
5) ................................................................................................ 17

Jenkins v. Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church,

356 Ill. App. 3d 504, 825 N.E.2d 1206 (Ill. Ct.
App., 2005)................................................................................. 14

Medical Bd. of Calif. v. Superior Court,

227 Cal. App. 3d 1458 (1991) ................................................... 17

Painters Dist. Council No. 33 v. Moen,

128 Cal. App. 3d 1032 (1982) ................................................... 15

Professional Engineers in California Government v.

Kempton,
40 Cal. 4th 1016 (2007) ....................................................... 11, 18

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n,
125 F.3d 1062 (7th Cir. 1997)......................................................8

Tipton v. Systron Donner Corp.,

99 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1979) ....................................................... 15

Wheeler v. St. Joseph Hospital,

63 Cal. App. 3d 345 (1976) ....................................................... 19

Young v. RemX, Inc.,

2 Cal. App. 5th 630 (2016) ........................................................ 19

68361999v1 4
 Real Parties in Interest Church of Scientology International
(“CSI”) and Religious Technology Center (“RTC” and collectively
with CSI, the “Real Parties”) hereby respond to the amicus letter
filed by National Crime Victim Bar Association.

I.
INTRODUCTION

The letter brief submitted by the National Crime Victim Bar

Association (“NCVBA”) is not an amicus brief: it is nothing more
than a cynical attempt by Petitioners’ lawyers to submit a second
brief raising issues not properly before this Court. NCVBA is an

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

ally of Petitioner’s attorneys; it is no “friend of the court.”
Moreover, this case has nothing to do with NCVBA’s purported
interests. As noted below, this case arises out of Petitioner’s time
as a volunteer member of a religious order serving on the staffs of
Real Parties. No “crime” has been committed and nobody has been
charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.
NCVBA claims to be an association of attorneys and expert
witnesses who represent crime victims.1 Among its Advisory Board
is Petitioner’s lawyer, Brian Kent from the Laffey, Bucci & Kent
law firm in Philadelphia.2 Another one of Petitioner’s lawyers,
Jeffrey Fritz of the Soloff & Zervanos law firm, also in
Philadelphia, is a charter member of NCVBA, also a member of
NCVBA’s Advisory Board, as well as a past President of the

1 https://victimbar.org/
2 https://victimbar.org/leadership-staff/

68361999v1 5
organization.3 Yet another one of Petitioner’s lawyers, Guy
D’Andrea, also from the Laffey, Bucci & Kent law firm, is the Chair
of NCVBA’s Young Lawyers Council.4 Mr. Kent, Mr. Fritz and Mr.
D’Andrea all filed applications in the Superior Court in this case
to appear pro hac vice and all appeared on the caption in
documents filed by Petitioner in the Superior Court, including her
opposition to Real Parties’ motions to compel arbitration.5
According to the website of the Laffey, Bucci & Kent law
firm, the firm specializes, among other things, in priest and clergy
abuse cases.6 The online biography of Mr. D’Andrea indicates that
he regularly handles cases involving allegations of abuse in
institutional settings and has special expertise in litigating cases

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

against religious organizations.7
By contrast, Antonio R. Sarabia, the “author” of NCVBA’s
amicus letter has a different focus:
Firm founder and principal attorney Antonio R.
Sarabia II is intimately familiar with the vast array of
legal issues that apparel and fashion companies
encounter on a daily basis. For eight years, he served
as general counsel of Guess? Inc., and has done work
for many large companies such as Jones Apparel,
Macy’s, Pacific Sunwear, and Kohl’s, as well as
emerging companies that are only beginning to grow.
In all phases of the apparel business, he has worked

3 Id.
4 Id.

5 Volume 1. Exhibits to Petition for Writ of Mandate, pages 7, 39

(“1 EP 7”); 2 EP 486, 508.
6https://www.laffeybuccikent.com/sex-assault-abuse-lawyers/
priest-clergy-sex-abuse-lawyers/
7 https://www.laffeybuccikent.com/attorneys/guy-dandrea/

68361999v1 6
 closely with prominent designers, and he understands
the importance of protecting the products of creative
minds.8

These facts call to mind, Judge Posner’s opinion in the case

entitled, Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d
1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997):
The vast majority of amicus curiae briefs are filed by
allies of litigants and duplicate the arguments made
in the litigants’ briefs, in effect merely extending the
length of the litigant’s brief. Such amicus briefs should
not be allowed. They are an abuse. The term “amicus
curiae” means friend of the court, not friend of a party.

(Emphasis added). NCVBA’s amicus letter is an abuse for this and

other reasons.

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

These writ proceedings were filed by Valerie Haney, a former
member of Scientology’s Sea Organization, a religious order
composed of the most dedicated Scientologists committed to the
lifelong volunteer service of their religion.9 Petitioner served on the
staffs of RTC and CSI for a total of around 15 years.10 She left the
staff of CSI in 2017, and filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court in
2019 alleging claims arising out of her tenure with Real Parties as
a volunteer staff member, including alleged wage and hour
violations, stalking, libel and slander, kidnapping and false

8 https://www.calrestitution.com/attorney/
9 Volume 1. Exhibits to Petition for Writ of Mandate, pages 16, 20
(“1 EP 16, 20”), at ¶¶ 44-45, 50.
10 1 EP 150; Volume 8, Defendants’ Exhibits in Support of
Preliminary Opposition, p. 1748 (“8 DEO 1748) (McShane
Declaration, ¶ 10); 1 EP 19-21 at ¶¶ 60-67.

68361999v1 7
imprisonment. The operative pleading is Petitioner’s First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”).11
In December 2019, Real Parties filed motions to compel
arbitration, seeking to enforce the multiple agreements Petitioner
signed while on staff with RTC and CSI agreeing to arbitrate any
claims she may have with CSI and/or RTC.12 The Superior Court
judge granted the motions following a hearing on January 30,
2020.13 Petitioner filed this Petition for Writ of Mandate on
September 10, 2020, over 7 months after the Superior Court
granted the motions to compel arbitration and long after her
deadline to petition this Court had run.
The arguments made in NCVBA’s amicus letter filed in

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

support of the untimely Petition should be rejected. NCVBA raises
arguments in its amicus letter that Petitioner has never even
made, which the Supreme Court has recognized is an improper
practice for an amicus curiae. The thrust of NCVBA’s amicus letter
is its contention that the Court should not enforce Petitioner’s
arbitration agreements because, purportedly, the arbitration is to
be conducted by Real Parties themselves or by the supposed
perpetrators of the torts alleged in the FAC. But the record shows,
and the Superior Court properly found, that Petitioner, a longtime
volunteer minister of the Scientology faith, agreed over and over
again to resolve any dispute she may have through Scientology

11 1 EP 6-39.
121 EP 40-67, 213-234; see also 3 EP 680-681 (Order compelling
arbitration).
13 3 EP 669-684.

68361999v1 8
Ethics, Justice and religious arbitration procedures, those same
procedures she now seeks to avoid. Moreover, the entirety of
NCVBA’s argument is simply wrong as a factual matter and
misrepresents the terms of the arbitration agreements, which
NCVBA fails to cite or address at all. Its contention that a religious
arbitration would work a violation of the First Amendment is not
properly before this Court, as Real Parties established in their
Preliminary Opposition to the Petition. (See Preliminary Opp., pp.
57-59.) Finally, NCVBA’s contention that the Court’s “guidance” is
needed on the issues presented in the amicus letter is both wrong
and misguided. It is wrong because the “issues” presented in the
letter are baseless and, in several cases, not even properly before

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

this Court. It is misguided because NCVBA offers no reasoning or
analysis for why whatever “guidance” NCVBA claims is needed is
necessary on writ review, rather than on an appeal in the ordinary
course.
In short, NCVBA is acting here as nothing other than a
patently obvious mouthpiece for Petitioners’ attorneys seeking to
make meritless arguments they neglected to raise with the
Superior Court. The Court should reject the letter and not consider
it.

68361999v1 9
 II.
RESPONSE TO AMICUS BRIEF OF NATIONAL CRIME
VICTIM BAR ASSOCIATION

A. Amicus Curiae Are Limited to the Issues and Evidence

Presented by the Parties to the Appellate Proceedings

“[A]n amicus curiae accepts the case as he finds it and may

not launch out upon a juridical expedition of its own …”.
Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton, 40
Cal. 4th 1016, 1047, fn. 12 (2007) (internal quotation and
alteration omitted). That rule applies to both fact and law. See id.

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

(amicus prohibited from going beyond “the actual appellate
record”). Thus, “California courts will not consider issues raised for
the first time by an amicus curiae.” California Bldg. Indus. Ass'n
v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 4 Cal. 5th 1032, 1049, fn 12 (2018).
Indeed “the rule is universally recognized that an appellate court
will consider only those questions properly raised by the appealing
parties.” Eggert v. Pac. States Sav. & Loan Co., 57 Cal. App. 2d
239, 251 (1943). “Amicus curiae must accept the issues made and
propositions urged by the appealing parties, and any additional
questions presented in a brief filed by an amicus curiae will not be
considered” Id.
Despite the fact that these rules are “universally
recognized,” NCVBA ignores them. NCVBA makes several
arguments that are not before this Court because Petitioner never
made them, either in this Court or in the Superior Court, or are

68361999v1 10
not properly before this Court because Petitioner never raised
them in opposition to the challenged order. Throughout its letter,
NCVBA does not act as a “friend of the court” at all, but rather an
advocate for Petitioner and her lawyers with whom NCVBA is
closely allied, seeking to raise new arguments that Petitioners’
counsel did not make in either the Superior Court or the Petition
filed in this Court. The Court should reject the letter.

B. NCVBA’s Amicus Letter Fails to Establish that Petitioner

Has Properly Alleged a Claim Against Real Parties, Viable
or Otherwise

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

NCVBA first argues in its amicus letter that Petitioner “has
viable claims” because “the First Amendment does not immunize
a religious organization from civil liability for intentional tortious
acts.” (Am. Br., p. 3.) NCVBA offers no analysis of the allegations
of the FAC. It does not even cite to the FAC. Nor does it cite to,
consider or discuss any evidence supposedly supporting the claims
Petitioner alleges. Thus, the brief fails to establish anything, and
it particularly does not establish that Petitioner has any claims
against Real Parties, viable or otherwise.
Moreover, whether a church is or is not immune from
liability for intentional torts is not at issue in these proceedings.
In fact, the issue has never been raised at all in this case, including
at any point in time in the Superior Court, or in connection with
Real Parties’ motions to compel arbitration, or in any brief or
document filed in this Court (apart from the NCVBA amicus

68361999v1 11
letter). The question of immunity is also entirely irrelevant here.
The issue raised by the Petition (and proceedings in the Superior
Court) is not whether Real Parties have defenses of immunity to
Petitioner's claims, but where those claims are to be litigated. The
Court need not and should not consider NCVBA’s contentions.

C. NCVBA’s Arguments Concerning the Nature of the

Arbitration Fail to Address the Actual Agreement and Are
Therefore Baseless

Next, NCVBA contends that compelled religious arbitration

for intentional tortious acts is unlawful and violates public policy.

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

(Am Br., pp. 3-6.) Petitioner has never before made that argument
before either. The Court should not consider it here for the same
reasons.
Moreover, NCVBA does not even support that contention
with argument or authorities. Instead, NCVBA makes a different
argument: that a court may not compel a person to arbitrate tort
claims in front of arbitrators who are chosen from “the alleged
perpetrators and facilitators of the tortious acts”. (Am. Br., p. 3.)
Not surprisingly, NCVBA does not cite to, let alone analyze
or discuss, any evidence in the record supporting that contention
either. Incredibly, NCVBA does not even cite to the arbitration
agreements at issue in these proceedings. In fact, NCVBA does not
once in its letter cite to the evidentiary record at all.
Had it done so, NCVBA would have been forced to recognize
that the evidence in the Superior Court established that

68361999v1 12
Petitioner, “signed valid arbitration agreements which cover all
claims in the FAC.” (3 EP 714 (Superior Court ruling.)) Those
agreements, all of which NCVBA ignores, include Staff Covenant
Agreements, Religious Services Enrollment Agreements and a
Staff Departure Agreement in which Petitioner over and over
again “affirm[ed] her dedication to Scientology and agree[d] to
resolve disputes within Scientology”—particularly through
“Scientology Internal Ethics, Justice and religious arbitration
procedures exclusively.” (1 EP 714-717.) The Superior Court
recognized that, due to her positions with Real Parties over many
years, including as an Ethics officer, Petitioner was well aware of
and understood the terms of her agreements, and chose to execute

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

them as a condition of her service with Real Parties. (3 EP 719-
720.) Courts routinely uphold similar religious dispute resolution
and arbitration procedures. See Conference of Evangelical
Methodist Church v. Evangelical Methodist Church, 807 F. Supp.
2d 1291, 1294-95, 1301 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (enforcing arbitration
provision calling for panel of church arbitrators); Easterly v.
Heritage Christian Sch., 2009 WL 2750099, at *3 (S.D. Ind. 2009)
(rejecting claims that arbitrators would be inherently biased
because of their religious beliefs and affiliations); Jenkins v.
Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 356 Ill. App. 3d 504, 512,
825 N.E.2d 1206, 1214 (Ill. Ct. App., 2005) (enforcing arbitration
agreement calling for arbitration by Lutheran pastors and
laymen). Indeed, the First Amendment renders all but
unreviewable by a secular court the terms and conditions
established by a church to govern a minster’s service of his or faith.

68361999v1 13
See, e.g., See, e.g., Hosanna Tabor v. Equal Empl. Opp. Comm’n
(2012) 565 U.S. 171, 192 (holding civil laws cannot govern the
relations between a church and its ministers).
Moreover, there is no evidence before this Court to even
suggest that any arbitrator in this case is to be chosen from “the
alleged perpetrators and facilitators of the tortious acts” as NVBA
falsely argues. (Am. Br., p. 3.) In fact, the FAC does not even
identify the “alleged perpetrators and facilitators” of whatever
claims Petitioner alleges. (1 EP 6-39.) To the extent the FAC
identifies any individuals by name at all, there is no suggestion in
the record that the arbitrators here would be picked from or allied
with such persons. Moreover, Contrary to NCVBA’s false

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

contentions, the agreements Petitioner signed provide that
Petitioner is to participate in the selection of arbitrators—
Petitioner selects one arbitrator, the responding party selects a
second, and the two party arbitrators select a third. (1 EP 154.)
This process is widely used in commercial arbitration settings and
ensures a neutral and balanced panel. See Gear v. Webster, 258
Cal. App. 2d 57, 63, (1968) (referring to selection process as the
“classic procedure”). Courts in California have repeatedly upheld
agreements for arbitration conducted by party-chosen arbitrators
especially when a neutral arbitrator is also involved. See Tipton v.
Systron Donner Corp., 99 Cal. App. 3d 501, 505–06 (1979);
Painters Dist. Council No. 33 v. Moen, 128 Cal. App. 3d 1032, 1040
(1982) (“[a]rbitration panels of such composition have consistently
been upheld in the past”).

68361999v1 14
 Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc., 28 Cal. 3d 807 (1981) therefore
does not assist NCVBA’s argument. That case involved an
arbitration agreement calling for an arbitration conducted by the
union of one of the parties to the contract in which the award was
to be, and was, confirmed by the union’s executive board. See id. at
815-16, 828. The arbitration agreement here is not similar.
Rather than address the numerous arbitration agreements
Petitioner executed, NCVBA seeks to mislead the Court with
references to old and/or irrelevant case opinions that are not even
accurately represented. For example, the amicus letter cites the
opinion in Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc.,
No. 8:13-CV-220-T-27TBM, 2018 WL 3439638 (M.D. Fla. July 17,

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

2018), but NCVBA fails to appreciate that the very opinion it cites
rejected its unsupported premise that the arbitrators there were
biased.
NCVBA also cites to the Christofferson and Wollersheim
cases—which are decades old, did not concern arbitration, and
involved overturned jury verdicts on causes of action that are not
even at issue here. Those cases have nothing to do with the matter
pending before this or the Superior Court. Not surprisingly, even
Petitioner never once cited the two irrelevant cases. NCVBA’s
contentions regarding the decisions are specious and
nonsensical.14

14Notably, NCVBA ignores the one case that is most similar to this
one—brought by two former Sea Org members alleging that they
had been “trafficked,”—which resulted in a summary judgment
ruling in favor of Real Parties, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.
Headley v. Church of Scientology International, 687 F,3d 1173 (9th

68361999v1 15
D. NCVBA’s Arguments Concerning Compelled Religious
Arbitration Are Not Properly Before This Court and Should
Be Rejected

NCVBA next argues that compelled religious arbitration is

a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
(Am. Br., p. 7.) This is yet another argument that is not properly
before this Court. As Real Parties established in their Preliminary
Opposition to the Petition, Petitioner never argued in opposition to
the motions brought by Real Parties in the Superior Court that
compelling arbitration of her claims would violate her First
Amendment rights. (2 EP 486-509; 3 EP 650-668.) The issue was

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

therefore not properly raised by Petitioner. Medical Bd. of Calif. v.
Superior Court, 227 Cal. App. 3d 1458, 1462 (1991) (on writ
petition, Court’s “concern is whether the respondent court acted

Cir. 2012). NCVBA also ignores another recent and relevant case
that Petitioner’s attorneys know well and is also much more
“similar” to this one. In September 2019, Petitioner’s attorneys
brought the action Jane Doe v. Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization, Inc., et al., No. 2019-CA-027633-01 (Miami-Dade
Co. FL.,Div. 5). Just as Petitioner does here, Jane Doe made
unsubstantiated allegations of harassment against various
Scientology entities. Local law enforcement conducted an
investigation of Jane Doe’s claims and closed the case after they
were unable to corroborate any of her bizarre allegations.
Thereafter, on June 5, 2020, Jane Doe filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of her complaint without receiving any payment or other
consideration from any of the defendants, which included Real
Parties. The police reports specifically noted that the anti-
Scientology cable television show that is Petitioner’s employer—
and on which Petitioner’s counsel has appeared—had “required”
Jane Doe to file her police complaint for her to appear on television.

68361999v1 16
properly on the record before it”) (emphasis supplied). Because “an
amicus curiae accepts the case as he finds it,” this Court should
not permit NCVBA and Petitioners’ counsel, who are so closely
allied, to “back door” the issue in an amicus brief. Professional
Engineers, 40 Cal. 4th at 1047, fn. 12; California Bldg. Indus.
Ass'n, 4 Cal. 5th at 1049, fn 12.15

E. NCVBA Fails To Establish That Guidance on Any Issue Is

Needed on Writ Review

Finally, NCVBA contends that guidance by this Court is

needed on a reoccurring issue. However, NCVBA has not properly

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

presented an “issue” that needs clarification or has not been
addressed and rejected by courts in the past. NCVBA suggests that
the “issue” for which “guidance” is needed is one involving
“compelled religious arbitration.” (Am. Br., p. 7.) But as noted
above, that issue is not even before this Court.
In any event, NCVBA completely misses the point. The
Court is currently considering whether to accept review of the
Superior Court’s order compelling arbitration by way of a Petition
for Writ of Mandate. NCVBA offers no reason why the Court
should consider the issues presented by the Petition now. As Real
Parties noted in their Preliminary Opposition, writ review of
orders directing parties to arbitrate is available only in “unusual

15Regardless, as Real Parties thoroughly documented in their

Preliminary Opposition to the Petition (pp. 48-50, 59-63), there is
no merit whatsoever to NCVBA’s contention that a Scientology
arbitration amounts to “enforc[ing] religious beliefs”.

68361999v1 17
circumstances” or “exceptional situations.” Independent Assn. of
Mailbox Center Owners, Inc. v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th
396, 405 (2005); Wheeler v. St. Joseph Hospital, 63 Cal. App. 3d
345, 353 (1976); Young v. RemX, Inc., 2 Cal. App. 5th 630, 636
(2016). NCVBA has not even suggested that any “unusual
circumstances” or “exceptional situations” have been presented
here.

III.
CONCLUSION

NCVBA’s facile and superficial amicus letter attempts to

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

address matters that are not at issue in this Court. The arguments
it does make do not even account for the actual terms of the
arbitration agreements signed by Petitioner or the evidence in the
record. The Court should reject NCVBA’s amicus letter and not
consider it further.

68361999v1 18
DATED:
September 30, 2020 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
WILLIAM H. FORMAN
DAVID C. SCHEPER
MARGARET E. DAYTON

By:
WILLIAM H. FORMAN
Attorneys for Defendant and Real
Party in Interest CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER &

MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS
MATTHEW D. HINKS

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

By:
MATTHEW D. HINKS
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
CENTER

68361999v1 19
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT RULE 8.204(c)(1)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 8.204(c)(1) I

certify that according to Microsoft word the attached brief is
proportionally spaced, has a typeface of 13 points and contains
3,294 words.

DATED: JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER &

September 30, 2020 MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS
MATTHEW D. HINKS

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

By:
MATTHEW D. HINKS
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
CENTER

68361999v1 20
 PROOF OF SERVICE

(C.C.P. §1013(a), 2015.5)

I, the undersigned, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows: I

am a citizen of the United States, and over the age of eighteen years, and not

a party to the within action; my business address is 1900 Avenue of the

Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On this date, I served the interested

parties in this action the within documents: RESPONSE TO AMICUS

LETTER OF NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM BAR ASSOCIATION via the

court’s online True Filing system as follows:

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Los Angeles County Superior Court (via USPS)
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Dept. 37
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Valerie T. McGinty (Valerie@plaintiffsappeals.com

Law Office of Valerie T. McGinty
524 Fordham Road
San Mateo, CA 94402

Robert W. Thompson (bobby@tlopc.com)

Thompson Law Offices
700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
Burlingame, CA 94010

Peter A. Gentala (pgentala@ncoselaw.org)

440 First Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20001

68342270v1
Marci A. Hamilton (hamilton.marci@gmail.com)
University of Pennsylvania
Fox-Fels Building
3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

Antonio R. Sarabia II (asarabia2@gmail.com)

IP Business Law, Inc.
320 via Pasqual
Redondo Beach, CA 90277

William H. Forman (Wforman@scheperkim.com)

David Scheper (dscheper@scheperkim.com)
Scheper Kim & Harris LLP
800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2701

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Jeffrey K. Riffer (jriffer@elkinskalt.com)
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
10345 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Executed at Los Angeles, California on September 30, 2020.

Sheila Jimenez

2
68342270v1