Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Ex-Scientologists Need Not Arbitrate Dispute With Church
Justice Laurence D. Rubin Says Arbitration Agreement Perishes When Church Affiliation Ends
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Four former members of the Church of Scientology who sued the church and a member of it, actor Danny Masterson—whose sexual misconduct was allegedly covered up by the church—cannot be held to an agreement they signed providing that any disputes that arose would be determined by arbitration, the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
Div. Five, in an opinion by Justice Laurence D. Rubin, granted a petition for a writ of mandate ordering that the Los Angeles Superior Court vacate an order by Judge Steven J. Kleifield granting a motion by the defendants to compel arbitration, and deny the motion.
“Individuals have a First Amendment right to leave a religion,” Rubin wrote. “We hold that once petitioners had terminated their affiliation with the Church, they were not bound to its dispute resolution procedures to resolve the claims at issue here, which are based on alleged tortious conduct occurring after their separation from the Church and do not implicate resolution of ecclesiastical issues.”
Harassment Alleged
The plaintiffs are actress/model Chrissie Carnell Bixler, her husband, Grammy-winning musician/singer/songwriter Cedric Bixler-Zavala, and two Jane Does (referred to in the trial court as “Jennifer B.” and “N. Trout”), all former Scientologists. They maintain that after they reported to police the rape of the three women by Masterson, in violation of a church rule against tattling, the church caused its adherents to embark on a campaign of vicious harassment of them, under what the church denominates a “Fair Game” procedure.
Bixler-Zavala, the lead singer of the rock group The Mars Volta, has alleged that as part of the harassment, the Scientologists killed their dog—a charge also made by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald Swearinger (now deceased) who presided over an action brought by the church against a former member and incurred ire of the church.
The alleged rapes are said to have occurred on separate occasions between 2001 and 2003.
The defendants—Church of Scientology International and two related entities, as well as Masterson—contend that the plaintiffs are contractually bound to have the dispute decided under the church’s “Ethics, Justice and Binding Religious Arbitration system.”
Contractual Provision
A provision in an agreement signed by each plaintiff says, in part:
“I am forever abandoning, surrendering, waiving, and relinquishing my right to sue, or otherwise seek legal recourse with respect to any dispute, claim or controversy against the Church, all other Scientology churches, all other organizations which espouse, present, propagate or practice the Scientology religion, and all persons employed by any such entity both in their personal and any official or representational capacities, regardless of the nature of the dispute, claim or controversy….
“[S]hould any dispute, claim or controversy arise between me and the Church, any other Scientology church, any other organization which espouses, presents, propagates or practices the Scientology religion, or any person employed by any such entity, which cannot be resolved informally by direct communication, I will pursue resolution of that dispute, claim or controversy solely and exclusively through Scientology’s Internal Ethics, Justice, and binding religious arbitration procedures….”
After Kleifield found the agreement to be enforceable, the plaintiffs sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal. In an order signed by Justices Lamar Baker and Carl H. Moor, Div. Five on March 8, 2021, denied the petition, explaining that the petitioners had redress via an appeal if the trial court confirmed the arbitration award.
Rubin said he “would issue an order to show cause returnable in this court.”
Supreme Court Action
The California Supreme Court granted review on May 26, directing that an order be issued to the Superior Court to show cause why a writ should not be granted.
In yesterday’s opinion, Rubin said, with respect to Bixler, Bixler-Zavala, and Jane Doe #2—who had left the church before the harassment commenced:
“The issue properly phrased is: after petitioners have left the faith, can Scientology still require that all of Scientology’s future conduct with respect to petitioners—including torts of whatever kind—be governed by Scientology law, with disputes to be resolved solely in Scientology tribunals by Scientology members? We conclude it cannot. Just like written antenuptial agreements to raise children in a particular faith are not enforceable against a parent who has left the faith, Scientology’s written arbitration agreements are not enforceable against members who have left the faith, with respect to claims for subsequent non-religious, tortious acts. To hold otherwise would bind members irrevocably to a faith they have the constitutional right to leave.”
Jane Doe #1
Rubin continued:
“Jane Doe #1 does not allege that she voluntarily left the Church; instead, she learned in 2005 that she had been declared a Suppressive Person and was told she was no longer permitted to engage in religious services at the Church. Having excluded Jane Doe #1 from its religious services, and allegedly committed torts against her more than 10 years later, the Church cannot now enforce against Jane Doe #1 the arbitration clause in an agreement she signed in order to obtain the religious services from which she has been excluded. If the religious relationship has been terminated—by either party—and the parishioner is no longer a member of the Church, the arbitration clause does not survive to cover disputes arising from future non-religious tortious conduct.”
Rubin went on to acknowledge that “[r]eligious (or ecclesiastical) abstention compels courts to abstain from resolving religious issues,” but said that “[r]eligious abstention does not control the result in this case for the reason that the doctrine is restricted to the adjudication of religious matters.” He explained:
“Here, petitioners’ lawsuit against Scientology is based on neutral principles. They are not alleging that the ‘Fair Game’ campaign against them did not comport with Scientology law; they are alleging that the conduct the Church engaged in was tortious under California law. California courts can resolve this issue under neutral principles of law. Similarly, the issue of arbitrability itself can be resolved under neutral principles of law — here, petitioners’ constitutional right to change religions. The issue is not one of Scientology doctrine, but generally applicable principles of law.”
No Explanation
Baker joined in the opinion except with respect to the discussion of religious abstention, opting not to explain his rejection of that portion of Rubin’s discussion.
A fifth plaintiff, Marie Bobette Riales, who claims she was raped by Masterson in 2003, is not a former Scientologist and was not a party to the appeal. Neither was David Miscavige, alleged to be the leader of Scientology, who was sued but not served.
The case is Bixler v. Superior Court, B310559.
Robert W. Thompson and Marci A. Hamilton of the Thompson Law Offices were attorneys on appeal for the plaintiffs/appellants. Representing the defendants/real parties were William H. Forman, David C. Scheper and Margaret E. Dayton of Winston & Strawn for the Church of Scientology International and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International; Robert E. Mangels and Matthew D. Hinks of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell for Religious Technology Center; and Andrew B. Brettler and Martin F. Hirshland of Lavely & Singer for Masterson.
Masterson is presently facing trial on three counts of rape stemming from the incidents that are the subject of the civil action.
|
|
|
—AP Danny Masterson is seen at his arraignment on rape charges on Sept. 18, 2020. He is awaiting trial. |
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company