Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/26/2020 11:58 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by E. Gregg,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
800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor
5 Los Angeles, California 90017-2701
Telephone: (213) 613-4655
6 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

7 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology

International and Celebrity Centre International
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10

11
CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC CASE NO. 19STCV29458
12 BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE Assigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield,
BOBETTE RIALES; and JANE DOE #2, Dept. 57
13
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF
14 SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND
v. CELEBRITY CENTRE
15 INTERNATIONAL’S OBJECTION TO
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER SUR-REPLY
16 INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF Date: November 6, 2020
17 SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE Time: 8:30 a.m.
INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE; Dept.: 57
18 DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1-25,

19 Defendants. Complaint Filed: August 22, 2019

Trial Date: None Set
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CSI AND CC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER SURREPLY

 CSI AND CC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER SUR-REPLY
1

2 On October 22, 2020, after Defendants filed their Reply Briefs, Plaintiffs impermissibly filed

3 and served “Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defenants’ [sic]

4 Motions to Compel Arbitration.” Plaintiffs’ “Sur-Reply” is unauthorized, unjustified, and should be

5 disregarded. Plaintiffs never sought leave to file a sur-reply and have raised entirely new arguments,

6 such as reliance on “Marsy’s Law,” that could have been made in Plaintiff’s Opposition but were

7 not.

8 I. Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply Was Filed Without Leave of Court and Should Be Disregarded
9 There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for a reply-to-a-reply, i.e., a “sur-reply.”

10 Civ. Proc. Code § 1005 (b), (c) (referring to “moving papers,” “papers opposing a motion,” and

11 “reply papers” and setting deadlines); Cal. Civ. Ctrm. Hbook. & Desktop Ref. § 17:24 (2020 ed.).

12 Where a sur-reply is filed without leave of court, the court “may simply disregard it.” City of Arcadia

13 v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 191 Cal.App.4th 156, 180 (2010).

14 Here, Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply was filed without leave of court or any justification; thus the

15 Court should “simply disregard it.” Id.; Bozzi v. Nordstrom, 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 (2010).

16 II. No Sur-Reply Is Warranted Here

17 Even if Plaintiffs had sought leave of court to file their sur-reply, a sur-reply is not warranted

18 here. A court has discretion to permit a sur-reply when it is necessary to address new issues raised

19 for the first time in a reply brief. In re Marriage of James & Christine C., 158 Cal.App.4th 1261,

20 1272 (2008). See In re Marriage of James & Christine C., 158 Cal.App.4th at 1272. However, an

21 issue is not “new” on reply if it “elaborate[s] on issues raised in the opening brief or rebut[s]

22 arguments made by respondent in respondent’s brief.” American Indian Model Schools v. Oakland

23 Unified School Dist., 227 Cal.App.4th 258, 276 (2014). Where no “new” issue is raised on reply, a

24 request to file a sur-reply is properly denied. See id.

25 Here, Plaintiffs present no argument for why a sur-reply should be permitted. Plaintiffs’ Sur-

26 Reply does not even assert that Defendants’ raised new arguments in their replies and thus a sur-

27 reply is justified. Instead, it attempts to (1) provide additional arguments and support for Plaintiffs’

28

CSI AND CC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER SURREPLY

 1 meritless argument that enforcement of the arbitration clauses violates the First Amendment, (Sur-

2 Reply at 2:1-21); and (2) raise a wholly new legal argument based on “Marsy’s Law,” which does

3 not respond to any argument by Defendants, (id. 2:22-5:14). Neither argument responds to a “new”

4 issue raised for the first time in Defendants’ Reply Briefs; therefore, the Court should not consider

5 the Sur-Reply.

6 First, regarding the First Amendment issues, Defendants’ Opening Briefs demonstrated that

7 enforcement of Plaintiffs’ arbitration agreements does not violate the First Amendment. (CSI/CC

8 Bixler/JD #1 Mot. at 20:24-21:14; CSI/CC JD #2 Mot. at 20:11-28.) Plaintiffs argued in the

9 Opposition that an order compelling arbitration would violate their First Amendment rights. (Pls.’

10 Opp. at 6:22-8:28.) Defendants rebutted this argument in their replies by showing that enforcement

11 of the private agreements does not constitute state action. (CSI/CC Reply at 8:11-20.) No sur-reply

12 regarding the First Amendment arguments is appropriate. See American Indian Model Schools, 227

13 Cal.App.4th at 276.

14 Second, the Sur-Reply’s argument relying upon Marsy’s Law does not respond to any
15 argument that Defendants raised in Reply or otherwise. The argument is based on the Victims’ Bill

16 of Rights Act of 2008, also known as Marsy’s Law, which became effective November 5, 2008. 28

17 CA Const. Art. I, § 28. Neither the Motions, the Opposition, nor the Reply briefs breathe a word

18 about Marsy’s Law. The Sur-Reply never explains or justifies Plaintiffs’ failure to raise an argument

19 based on existing law in the permitted briefing, and to raise it for the first time ever in an improper

20 sur-reply. 1

21
1
22 In a disingenuous attempt to excuse their failure to timely raise this argument, the Sur-Reply
claims that Defendants “admit in their reply . . . that Defendant Danny Masterson is their agent
23 and CSI, CCI and RTC are agents of Defendant Masterson and as such, Defendant Masterson
retains the same right to demand arbitration in this matter as CSI, CCI and RTC.” (Sur-Reply at
24 2:23-25.) This statement is false. RTC’s Reply brief argues that Plaintiffs’ allegation that
Masterson is Defendants’ agent and Plaintiffs’ argument on Demurrer that Masterson is
25 Defendants’ agent precludes Plaintiffs’ from arguing to the contrary that Masterson is a “third
26 party.” (RTC Reply at 10:9-18.) Further, Defendants’ Opening Briefs argued that Defendant
Masterson could enforce the arbitration provision because Plaintiffs allege that he is an agent of
27 Defendants CSI, CC, and RTC. (CSI/CC JD #1 Mot. at 14:10-19; CSI/CC JD #2 Mot. at 14:4-9.)
Indeed, Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges that Defendant Masterson is Defendants’ agent. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶
28
2
CSI AND CC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER SURREPLY
 1 Even if Plaintiffs had requested permission to file their Sur-Reply, the request should have

2 been denied. There is no basis for the Court to exercise its discretion and consider Plaintiffs’

3 improper Sur-Reply.

4 III. Should the Court Consider The Substance of Plaintiffs’ Improper Sur-Reply, CSI

5 and CC Request Permission to File A Written Response

6 Should the Court decide to consider the substance of Plaintiff’s improper Sur-Reply, CSI

7 and CC request the opportunity to file a written submission addressing the Sur-Reply’s newly-raised

8 and meritless arguments.

9
DATED: October 26, 2020 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
10
WILLIAM H. FORMAN
11

12
By:
13 William H. Forman
14 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology
International and Celebrity Centre International
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
62, 63.) Defendant Masterson’s alleged status as Defendants’ agent is not a “new” issue that was
26
raised on reply which could justify a sur-reply. Finally, Masterson was charged with crimes
27 against some of the Plaintiffs on June 17, 2020, over three months before Plaintiffs filed their
Opposition, so Plaintiffs cannot (and do not) assert that any new fact justifies the need for a sur-
28 reply.
3
CSI AND CC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER SURREPLY
 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 October 26, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
7 DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND CELEBRITY
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER SUR-
8 REPLY on the interested parties in this action as follows:

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

10 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an

agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the
11 document(s) to be sent from e-mail address cspears@scheperkim.com to the persons at the e-mail
addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
12 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

13 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person listed in the

Service List by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal, LLC, through
14 the user interface at www.onelegal.com.

15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
16
Executed on October 26, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.
17

18
/s/ Connie Spears
19 Connie Spears
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
 1 SERVICE LIST
Chrissie Carnell Bixler v. Church of Scientology International, et al.
2 LASC Case No. 19STCV29458

3
Robert W. Thompson Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHRISSIE CARNELL
4 Casey A. Gee BIXLER; CEDRIC BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE
THOMPSON LAW OFFICES DOE #1; MARIE BOBETTE RIALES and
5 700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160 JANE DOE #2
Burlingame, CA 94010
6 Telephone: 650-513-6111
Facsimile: 650-513-6071
7 Emails: bobby@tlopc.com
casey@tlopc.com
8 alicia@tlopc.com

9 Graham E. Berry
Law Office of Graham E. Berry
10 3384 McLaughlin Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066-2005
11 Telephone: 310-745-3771
Facsimile: 310-745-3771
12 Email: grahamberryesq@gmail.com

13 Brian D. Kent (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Gaetano D’Andrea (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
14 M. Stewart Ryan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT LLP
15 1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
Philadelphia, PA 19102
16 Telephone: 215-399-9255
Facsimile: 215-241-8700
17 Emails: bkent@lbk-law.com
GDandrea@laffeybuccikent.com
18 sryan@laffeybuccikent.com
vzeoli@laffeybuccikent.com
19 jkerr@ laffeybuccikent.com

20 Jeffrey P. Fritz (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

SOLOFF & ZERVANOS P C
21 1525 Locust Street, 8th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
22 Telephone: 215-732-2260
Facsimile: 215-732-2289
23 Email: jfritz@lawsz.com
lgoodfellow@lawsz.com
24 jgilbert@lawsz.com

25

26

27

28
 1 Marci Hamilton (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
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
Robert E. Mangels Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS
6 Matthew D. Hinks TECHNOLOGY CENTER
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER
7 & MITCHELL LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
8 Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
Telephone: 310-203-8080
9 Facsimile: 310-203-0567
Emails: rmangels@jmbm.com
10 mhinks@jmbm.com

11 Jeffrey K. Riffer Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendant

ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN DAVID MISCAVIGE
12 GARTSIDE LLP
10345 West Olympic Boulevard
13 Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: 310-746-4400
14 Facsimile: 310-746-4499
Email: jriffer@elkinskalt.com
15
Andrew B. Brettler Attorneys for Defendant
16 LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL DANIEL MASTERSON
CORPORATION
17 2049 Century Park E 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
18 Telephone: 310-556-3501
Facsimile: 310-556-3615
19 Email: abrettler@lavelysinger.com

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28