Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bixler v. Scientology: Supplemental Opposition To Pro Hac Vice
Bixler v. Scientology: Supplemental Opposition To Pro Hac Vice
12
26
27
28
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 Defendants Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and Celebrity Centre International
2 (“CC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit this supplemental opposition to the applications
3 for admission pro hac vice filed by out-of-state lawyers (1) Brian D. Kent, (2) Gaetano D’Andrea,
4 (3) M. Stewart Ryan, (4) Jeffrey P. Fritz, and (5) Marci Hamilton on behalf of Plaintiffs in the
6 As this Court recognized in its March 11, 2020 tentative order, Applicants’ pro hac vice
7 Applications were defective because they failed to satisfy California Rule of Court 9.40’s
8 requirements. (See 3/11/2020 Order at 2-3.) Rather than deny the Applications, this Court gave
9 Applicants the opportunity to file supplemental declarations to satisfy Rule 9.40’s requirements for
10 admission pro hac vice. Despite filing such declarations, Applicants still fail to satisfy Rule 9.40.
11 1. Brian D. Kent – Kent’s Application remains deficient for multiple reasons. First, neither the
12 original Application nor Kent’s supplemental declaration contain his residential address as
13 required by Rule 9.40(d)(1). See Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(1) (“application must state: (1) The
14 applicant’s residence and office address”) (emphasis added). Second, Kent’s Application does not
15 satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(2)’s requirement that the applicant list the “the courts to which the applicant
16 has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission.” Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2) (emphasis
17 added). Kent’s Application does not list any court to which he is admitted practice, and does not
18 list the date, or even the month of such admission. Rather, Kent’s Application only identifies
19 States in which he is admitted to practice and the year of his admission. Because Kent failed to list
20 the specific courts to which he is admitted to practice, and the specific dates of his admission to
22 2. Gaetano D’Andrea – This Court should deny D’Andrea’s Application because it contains
23 contradictory sworn statements and fails to comply with Rule 9.40. The two sworn declarations
24 D’Andrea submitted to this Court contradict each other. D’Andrea’s December 17, 2019 sworn
25 declaration states that he has “filed motions in the States of California, West Virginia, New York,
26 and New Jersey in the preceding two years to appear pro hac vice.” (12/17/2019 D’Andrea Decl.
27 ¶ 5.) However, his March 12, 2020 declaration swears that he “filed no other pro hac vice
28
2
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 applications in California in the preceding two years.” (3/12/2020 D’Andrea Decl. ¶ 2).1
2 Moreover, neither D’Andrea’s original Application nor his supplemental declaration contain his
3 residential address as required by Rule 9.40(d)(1). Finally, D’Andrea’s Application does not list
4 the dates of admission to the courts in which he is admitted to practice. See Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2).
5 3. M. Stewart Ryan – This Court should deny Ryan’s Application because it fails to comply with
6 multiple requirements of Rule 9.40. Despite filing a supplemental declaration, Ryan’s Application
7 still fails to list his residential address in violation of Rule 9.40(d)(1). Ryan’s Application also
8 does not list the specific courts to which he is admitted, or the specific dates of his admission as
10 4. Jeffrey P. Fritz – This Court should deny Fritz’s Application because it fails to comply with
11 multiple requirements of Rule 9.40. Despite filing a supplemental declaration, Fritz’s Application
12 still fails to list his residential address in violation of Rule 9.40(d)(1). Fritz’s Application also does
13 not list the specific courts to which he is admitted, or the specific dates of his admission as
15 5. Marci Hamilton – This Court should deny Hamilton’s Application because it fails to comply
16 with Rule 9.40’s requirements. As with the other Applications, Hamilton’s Application fails to
17 satisfy Rule 9.40(d)(2)’s requirement that the applicant list the specific “courts to which the
18 applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission.” Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(2)
19 (emphasis added). Hamilton’s Application only identifies States in which she is admitted and the
20 year of admission. The Application does not list any court to which Hamilton is admitted and the
21 date, or even month, of such admission. Hamilton’s Application also fails to list her University of
22 Pennsylvania office address, despite it appearing on the caption of the Complaint and First
23 Amended Complaint. See Cal. R. Ct. 9.40(d)(1) (requiring that the applicant “must” provide their
24 “office address”). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny
26
27 1
This Court recognized that D’Andrea’s December 17, 2019 declaration was “entirely contrary”
28 to the reply brief Plaintiffs submitted in support of the Applications. (3/11/2020 Tentative Order
at 3, fn. 1.)
3
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 DATED: April 9, 2020 SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
WILLIAM H. FORMAN
2 DAVID C. SCHEPER
3 MARGARET E. DAYTON
JEFFREY L. STEINFELD
4
5
By: /s/ William H. Forman
6
William H. Forman
7 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology
International and Church of Scientology Celebrity
8 Centre International
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
18
19
Pamela Tanigawa
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 SERVICE LIST
Chrissie Carnell Bixler v. Church of Scientology International, et al.
2 LASC Case No. 19STCV29458
3
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE AND E-MAIL Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHRISSIE CARNELL
4 BIXLER; CEDRIC BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE
Robert W. Thompson DOE #1; MARIE BOBETTE RIALES and
5 Kristen A. Vierhaus JANE DOE #2
THOMPSON LAW OFFICES
6 700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
Burlingame, CA 94010
7 Telephone: 650-513-6111
Facsimile: 650-513-6071
8 Emails: [email protected]
[email protected]
9
Graham E. Berry
10 Law Office of Graham E. Berry
3384 McLaughlin Ave.
11 Los Angeles, CA 90066-2005
Telephone: 310-745-3771
12 Facsimile: 310-745-3771
Email: [email protected]
13
ATTORNEYS NOT ADMITTED TO THE
14 CALIFORNIA BAR – SERVED VIA E-MAIL
ONLY AS A COURTESY
15
Brian D. Kent
16 Gaetano D’Andrea
M. Stewart Ryan
17 LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT LLP
1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
18 Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215-399-9255
19 Facsimile: 215-241-8700
Emails: [email protected]
20 [email protected]
[email protected]
21
Jeffrey P. Fritz
22 SOLOFF & ZERVANOS P C
1525 Locust Street, 8th Floor
23 Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215-732-2260
24 Facsimile: 215-732-2289
Email: [email protected]
25
26
27
28
6
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS
1 Marci Hamilton
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
2 Fox-Fels Building
3814 Walnut Street
3 Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: 215-353-8984
4 Facsimile: 215-493-1094
Email: [email protected]
5
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE AND E-MAIL Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS
6 Robert E. Mangels TECHNOLOGY CENTER
Matthew D. Hinks
7 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER
& MITCHELL LLP
8 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
9 Telephone: 310-203-8080
Facsimile: 310-203-0567
10 Emails: [email protected]
[email protected]
11
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE AND E-MAIL Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendant
12 Jeffrey K. Riffer DAVID MISCAVIGE
ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN
13 GARTSIDE LLP
10345 West Olympic Boulevard
14 Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: 310-746-4400
15 Facsimile: 310-746-4499
Email: [email protected]
16
SERVED VIA E-SERVICE AND E-MAIL Attorneys for Defendant
17 Andrew B. Brettler DANIEL MASTERSON
LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL
18 CORPORATION
2049 Century Park E 2400
19 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-556-3501
20 Facsimile: 310-556-3615
Email: [email protected]
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
CSI AND CC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS’ PRO HACE VICE APPLICATIONS