Laura DeCrescenzo - Notice of Entry of Judgment

8/8/2019 Laura DeCrescenzo - Notice of Entry of Judgment

1/28

PROSKAUER ROSEBERT H. DEIXLER, SBN 706142 HAROLD M. BRODY, 84927G. SAMUEL CLEAVER, 173 2049 Century Park 32ndLos Angeles, CA4 Telephone: 310.557.2900Facsimile: 31 193

5 KENDRICK MOXON, No.6 MOXON & KOBRIN3055 900789 rNTERNATIONAL10

1112

OF THE STATE OF ~ . ~ M . I ~ 1 1 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

13141516171819

23

2425262728

LAURA ANN

vs.

as Doe2

Plaintiff,

RELIGIOUSsued hereinAND DOES

Defendants.

Case No. 411018Assigned AllHonorable Ronald M.NOTICE OFIDDGMENTComplaintSAC

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT8086/21051-006 Currentf19864663v1


2/28


3/28

"

")

345678910II12131415161718192021

242516

( - ~ . I::: 28 !"- I I

ORIGINPROSKAl'ER ROSE LLPBERT H. DEIXI.ER. SBN 70614HAROLD M. BRUD'{. SBN 84927]049 CcnlU[\, Park East. 3'::nd FloorLos Angch.< C1\ 90067 -3:!06Telephone: 310.557.2900 REC'DFacsimile: 310.557.219) FILEDLOS ANGELES SUPERIO COURTMOXON & KOBRIN MAY 25 2010KENDRICK L MOXON, SBN 1.2$t'JG GVVINDOW3055 Wilshire Boulevard. 'Suite < ) " ~ .WNLos Angeles. California 900 I 0Telephone: (21 4 8 7 ~ 4 4 6 8 Facsimile: (213) 487-5385Attornevs for DclcndantCIIURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONALJEfFER. MANGELS. BVTLER & MARMARO LLPMARC MARMARO. SBNA\'IY LERNER HILL SBN 2 1 6 : ; ~ 8 1900 Avcnue of the Starl'. SC\'cmh FloorLos ! \ n g d e ~ . Calilomia 90067-4308Telephone: (:; JO ~ 203-8080Fac!{imiie: (310) 203-0567Alwrm:\'s lilr Dclcndan!REI.IGIOrS TECHNOLOG'{ CENTER

SlrpEiUOi{ COlfH.T OF THE STATE OF CALIFOI{NIA1-'01{ THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO.Plaintiff.

Nt!. BC 411018I-Ion. Ronald M. Suhigian By Faxv.

)))))))

PlUg. 9'!l!'JtI.JUIlGMENTCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAl. a corporate entity,RELIGIOuS TECHNOLOGY CENTER.previously sued herein as Doc No. I. a .California Corporation. AND DOES 2 -20.

.l Action Filed: April 2,2009) SAC filed: February 1, J0)))Defendants. ")

I- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - .IPROPOS[DIJVO(;l\tENT


4/28

7 8 1 i 2 1 0 5 ~ r d D ' 4

ThC' J ) ~ m l l r r e r of DefenJant C h u ~ c h ofSdenlology International r-CSf"') 10 t h ~ ,,,,,,,"'H'Amended Complaint ('"SAC') of Laur'd Ann DeCrescem::o ("'Plainlirf') came on regularly li.lrIll'tlring by the Courl on March 18.20 I 0, at 8:45 a.m .. Ihe Honorable Ronald 1'.'1.. Sohigian, Judge

4 presiding. Kathryn Darnell, and Kimberly Miller. of I'vtctzger Law Group appeared ascounsel fbr 'Plaintiff, and Harold M. Brody, Esq. Proskaucr Rose LLP and Kendrick L, :Vloxon,

6 Esq. of Moxon & Kobrin appeared as counsel for CSt After considering parties' papers and7 hearing oral argument. and good cause appearing therefore. the Court sustained Ihe Demurrer in itsR entirety, \vithoUl to amend. on the ground that the SAC and each cause of action therein. is


5/28

xhibit A


6/28

123'\I

56789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 41 HON. RONALD M. SOHIGIAN, JUDGE

LAURA ANN DECRESCENZO,PLAINTIFF,

VS.CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL

DEFENDANT,

1)1}) CASE NO. B C ~ 1 1 0 1 8 ))}))

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

fOR THE DEfENDANTS;

KATHRYN DARNELL,ATTORNEY AT LAWKIMBERLY MILLERATTORNEY AT LAWHAROLD M. BRODY,ATTORNEY AT LAWKENDRICK L. MOXON,ATTORNEY AT LAWREPORTED BY:ANGELA ZARATAN PARADELAOFFICIAL COURT REPORTERCSR NO. 9659

. , . ~ "


7/28

123456789

10111213141516n1819202122232425262728

...., J'"'-',,_I;

CASE NUMBER; BC41l018CASE NAME: LAURA ANN DECRESCENZO VERSUS

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONALLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, ~ A R C H 18, 2010DEPARTME:NT 41 HON. RONALD M. SOMIGIAN, JUDGE

(SEE TITLE PAGE.)PPEARANCES:REPORTER: ANGELA Z. PARADELA, CSR NO. 9659T n ~ E : 8:45 A.M.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS W ~ R E HELD INOPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: DECRESCENZO AGAINST CHURCH OFSCIENTOLOGY, BC411018.

MR. BRODY: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. HAROLD M.BRODY ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT MOVING PARTY.

MR. MOXON: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. KENDRICKMOXON ALSO ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS.

MS. DARNELL: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. KATHRYNDARNELL OF METZGER LAW GROUP ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS.

MS. MILLER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. KIM MILLERON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS, METZGER LAW GROUP.

THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE MOVANT?MR. BRODY: YOUR HONOR, OTHER THAN WE ARE P R E P ~ R E D

TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS COURT MAY HAVE, WE ARE PREPARED TOSUBMIT ON THE PAPERS.

THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE PLAINTIFFS?MS. DARNELL: YOUR HONOR, JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS

1


8/28

11

'7

1 THE COURT; THANK yOU VERY MUCH.2 (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED.)3456189

1011121314151617

1819202122232425262728--;

I, .JIii!l "> >,.\I 1::).",t-"


9/28

123456189

10111213141516171819202122232425262728c ) ,t

:siI .'."J r f(' )"',

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIArORTAE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 41 HON. RONALD M. SOHIGIAN, JUDGELAURA ANN DECRESCENZO,

PLAINTIFF,VS.

CHURCH OF SCI!NTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL,DEFENDANTS,

STATE OF CALIFORNIAS5COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

)}})) CASE NO. BC411018))) REPORTER'S) CERTIFICATE)

If ANGELA Z. PARADE LA , CSR NO. OFFICIAL REPORTEROF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THECOUNTY LOS ANGE:LES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH FOREGOINGPAGES 1 THROUGH 7 COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECTTRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS HELD ON MARCH 18 ,2010 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.

MARCH 19 , 2010

_____________ , CSR NO. 9659OFFICIAL REPORTER

1'-


10/28

---------

-- ...--

Exhibit Bn


11/28

J" " ~ ' .

123456789

1011121314151617

181920212223

2526

,- . \ 2728

St'PSRIOR COURT OF THE STATE: OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 41 HON. RONALD M. SOHIGIAN, JUDGE


VS.CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL

DEFENDANT,

CASE NO. BC41101BCERTIFIED COpy

FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 2010

FOR T ~ E PLAINTIFFS:

Foa THE DEfENDANTS:KIMBERLY MILLERATTORNEY AT LAWMARC MARMARO,ATTORNEY AT LAW

REPORTED BY:ANGELA ZARATAN PARADELAOFFICIAL COURT REPORTERCSR NO: 9659

Ex (3


12/28

1234567S9

101112131415161718192021

22232425262728

c-"t . ~ -. JEiI.:'" (I","'"

1

CASE NUMBER: BC411inaCASE NAME: LAURA ANN DECRESCENZO VERSUS

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONALLOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY I APRIL 30. 2010DEPARTMENT 41 HON. RONALD M. SOHIGIAN, JUDGEAPPEARANCES: {SEE TITLEREPORTER: ANGELA Z. PARADELA, CSR NO. 9659TIME: 8:40 A.M.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD INOPEN COURT: j

THE COURT: OUY. LET' S PICK UP DECRESCENZOAGAINST CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, BC411018.

MS. MILLER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. KIMBERLYMILLER FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FROM THE METZGER LAW GROUP.

MR. MARMARO: GOOD MORNING YOUR HONOR. MARKMARMARO FOR RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, MOVING PARTY.

THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE DEMURRANT?MR. M.AR.MAR.O: NOTHING OTHER THAN TO ANSWER COURT'S

QUESTIONS AND TO RESPOND.THE COURT: IS THE STATE OF RECORD, COUNSEL FOR THE

PLAINTIFF, THAT NO WRITTEN OPPOSITION WAS TIMELY SERVED ORFILED?

MS. MILLER: NO,. YOUR HONOR. WE FILED ANOPPOSITION.

THE COURT: DATE?MS. MILLER: APRIL 16, 2010.


13/28

2

1 THE COURT: LET'S SEE.2 I DON'T HAVE ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS. THAT'S THE3 REASON WHY I ASKED YOU ABOUT IT. IT ' S NOT REALLY HARD TO4 UNDERSTAND WHY, ASSUMING THAT THEY WERE FILED ON THE DATE5 THAT 'lOU SAY. JUST - - LET ME 00 A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL6 WORK.7 MR. MARMARO: YOUR HONOR, I SHOULD SAY WE TIMELY8 RECEIVED THE OPPOSITION.9 THE COURT: NO. I MEAN, I AM NOT QUARRELING WITH

10 THAT ASSERTION YET. ALL I SAID WAS I DON'T HAVE IT.11 MR. MARMARO: NO, I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANT TO12 MAKE CLEAR, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE RECEIVED IT .13 THE COURT: NO, I DON'T HAVE THE MATERIAL. I HAVE14 TO SEE WHAT I CAN GENERATE BY COMPUTER SEARCH', JUST A15 MINUTE.16 MS. M!LLER: YOUR HONOR, tiE ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT17 ON THE - - ON THE WRITINGS. I DO HAVE A CONFORMED COPY. I18 WOULD BE HAPPY TO GO MAKE A COPY.19 THE COURT: YOUR POSITION IS DEFENDANT IS20 ESSENTIALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE POSITION OF THE OTHER21 DEFENDANT AND PERHAPS THE WHOLE THING OUGHT TO BE TERMINATED.22 SO IF THOSE ARE MY VIEWS, SOMEBODY CAN GET TO THE APPELLATE23 COURT?24 MS. MILLER: THAT'S VERY WELL AND SUCCINCTLY25 STATED. BETTER THAN WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID.26 THE COURT: I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WOULD BE AN27 ENTIRETY RESPONSIBLE WAY TO DO WITH IT. I THINK I AM MAKING28 THE DECISION THAT'S REQUIRED BY LAW AND THAT CHANGE COULD

t. .

H


14/28

3

1 ONLY BE MADE BY AN APPELLATE COURT. I THINK I'M BOUND TO DO2 WHAT I HAVE SUGGESTED. JUST A SECOND.3 fA PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)4 THE COURT: I THINK WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS THIS.5 THE RECORD DOES REFLECT THAT, NOT THE RECORD I HAVE IN HAND,6 BOT THE COMPUTER-MAINTAINED RECORD DOES REFLECT ON THE 16TH7 OF APRIL, 2010, MR. VAN SICKLE'S OFFICE -- OR MR. METZGER'S8 OFFICE, OR BOTH, FILED A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "PLAINTIFF'S9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO

10 DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER'S DEMURRER TO11 PLAINTIFF' S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT." THAT WAS FILED ON12 THAT DATE. IT DOES PROPERLY SHOW TODAY NOW THE HEARING13 DATE, TIME, AND SO FORTH.14 AND IF YOU WILL WAIT FOR JUST A SECOND.15 THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THERE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY16 SIMILAR TO THE ~ ~ G U M E N T S MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MATTER17 THAT WAS DECIDED ON THE 18TH OF MARCH, 2010.18 JUST A SECOND.19 AND THE COURT HAS STATED THE STRATEGIC20 POSITION OF THE PLAINTIFF AS TO WHICH COURT HAS NO RESENTMENT21 OR SENSE OF VANITY.22 THE DEFENDANT IT SEEMS TO ME, CORRECT THAT23 THE PLAINTIFF ENTITLED IS TAKE THB MATTER TO THE APPELLATE24 COURT.25 AND WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS THIS. I WILL26 DECIDE THE MATTER NOW, AND I W I L ~ MAKE A RELATIVELY LONG27 STATEMENT ON THE RSCORD STATING MY REASONING SO THAT YOU CAN28 HAVE A RECORD AND THEN TODAY I THINK WHAT I WILL DO IS, IF

( ."',.. .J

l .:.:


15/28

1 IT 'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE PLAINTIFF, ON MY OWN MOTION, I WILL2 SIMPLY DISMISS THIS ACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY - - THAT SHOULD1 GIVE YOU A TARGET THAT CAN BE ATTACKED ON APPEAL - - AND HAVE4 THE CLERK PREPARE AN ORDER ACCOMPLISHING THAT FOR MY5 SIGNATURE.{} DOES THAT SOUND OKAY FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S7 POINT OF VIEW?8 MS. MILLER: YES, YOUR HONOR.

MR. MARMARO: YES. YOUR HONOR.

4

10 THE COURT: LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT.11 ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A LAi'ISUIT THAT WAS FILED12 ON THE 2ND OF APRIL, 2009 - - THAT DATE IS SIGNIFICANT FOR13 REASONS THAT WILL BECOME CLEAR LATER - - IN WHICH14 MS. DECRESCENZO, THE PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF15 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, PERSONAL RIGHTS, RIGHTS IN CONNECTION16 WITH WAGE AN HOUR. AND ESSENTIALLY THE NARRATIVE GIVEN IN17 THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS THAT SHE ASSERTS THAT SHE18 WAS, r 'D SAY, BASICALLY BRAINWASHED. SHE ALLEGES THAT SHB19 WAS CONTROLLED AND EXPLOITED AS A MEMBER AND EMPLOYEE OF THE20 SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH BETWEEN THE AGES OF 12 AND 25.21 AND IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT THE22 PLAINTIFF ASSERTS THE RIGHT TO RECOVERY BASED ON THE THEORIES23 OF FORCED ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I , SECTION 1 OF24 THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, FORCED ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF25 COMMON LAW, DEPRAVATION OF LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I ,26 SECTION 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, FALSE IMPRISONMENT,27 INTENTIONAL - - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,26 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODe SECTIONS 970 AND 1194, AND VIOLATION< )"-t .'..

a))~ C ) i"-I"

H


16/28

5

1 OF BOSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200.2 THE PLAINTIFF HAS DEMANDED IN HER SECOND3 AMENDED COMPLAINT A TRIAL BY JURY, ALTHOUGH QUITE OBVIOUSLY4 THE WAY THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS SET UP. SHE WOULD NOT5 BE ENTITLED TO A JURY AS TO PURPORTED CAUSE OF ACTION 7 WHICH6 MIGHT - WHICH S ~ O U L D BE TRIED FlRST SEPARATELY AND WITHOUT7 JURY.S ON THE 30TH OF MARCH, 2010, AFTER I HAD MADE9 THE ORDER OF MARCH 1S , 2010, DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS

10 TECHNOLOGY CENTER FILED PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRERS TO11 THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.12 THE THRUST OF THE CONTENTION PRESENTED BY13 THOSE PAPERS IS THAT ALL OF THE PURPORTED CAUSES OF ACTION,14 ALL SEVEN OF THEM, COULD NOT STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO15 CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL TIME BARRED16 AND BECAUSE THEY DISCLOSE THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT EMPLOYED17 BY DEFBNDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER.IS NOW, WHAT I HAVE ~ WHAT I DID ON THE 16TH OF19 MARCH, 2010, WAS RULE ON THE POINTS RAISED BY THE20 DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN - - IN FAVOR OF THE21 DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY AS A MATTER OF LAW. I22 INDICATE THAT I DONtT HAVE ANY PERSONAL PREFERENCES ONE WAY23 OR THE OTHER AMONG THESE VARIOUS LITIGANTS, BUT I DID SUSTAIN24 THE DEMURRER OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY AND ORDERED THAT25 THE MATTER SHOULD BE DISMISSED.26 I AM GRANTING THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENDANT27 BEFORE ME NOW, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY, FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND28 I HEREBY SUSTAIN THE CAUSES OF ACTION - - THE DEMURRERS OF


17/28

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324

25262728

-< .)r.;"'. Ja :;j

""

6

D E F E N D ~ ' RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY TO ALL THE CLAIMS ANDPURPORTED CAUSES OF ACTION SET OUT IN THE SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TOCONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND DENY LEAVE TO AMEND SO THATPART OF THIS ORDER WILL BE AN ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION INITS ENTIRETY WITH THE DEFENDANTS TO HAVE THEIR COST OF SUITHEREIN IN THE AMOUNT OF: DOLLAR SIGN, BLANK, AS TO EACHDEFENDANT,

THE VIEW I HAVE, WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THEPLAINTIFF'S LAWYER, IS THAT THERE IS NO BASIS TO DISTINGUISHBETWEEN PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CHURCH OFSCIENTOLOGY AND AGAINST DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTERFOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TIME BAR POINT.

AND THE PLAINTIFF RECOGNIZES THAT, ANDPLAINTIFF'S VIEW IS I WAS WRONG ON THE 18TH OF MARCHRESPECT THAT VIEW, ALTHOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH IT -- BUTPRECISELY THE SAME REASONING APPLIES.

THIS IS THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE IN

AND I

CONNECTION WITH THE DELAYED DISCOVERY RULE WHICH IS ONE OFTHE PRINCIPLES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMSTHAT THE CASE IS NOT TIME BARRED.

THE WAY THAT DELAYED DISCOVERY RULE WORKS ISTHAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT NEED TO BE AWARE OF SPECIFICFACTS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIM FOR THE LIMITATIONPERIOD TO RUN. AND EVEN IF THE PLAINTIFF IS IGNORANT OF THELEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF KNOWN FACTS OR OF THE IDENTITY OF THEWRONGDOER, THAT DOES NOT DELAY THE RUNNING OF THE TIME BARPERIOD. THE -- THE TEST IS AN OBJECTIVE TEST.

2(


18/28

7

1 THE DISCOVERY RULE LOOKS NOT TO WHAT A2 PARTICULAR PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY KNEW OR SAYS HE OR SHE KNEW,3 BUT RATHER WHAT A REASONABLE INQUIRY WOULD HAVE REVEALED.4 AND THE LIMITATION PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THE5 CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ENOUGH TO GIVE RISE TO A SUSPICION OF6 WRONGDOING, THAT IS , WHEN THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOTICE OF, OR7 INFORMATION OF, CIRCUMSTANCES SUFFICIENT TO PUT A REASONABLE8 PERSON ON INQUIRY.9 THIS IS DISCUSSED IN A NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA

10 CASES. ONE THAT'S CONVENIENT IS THE M T T . T , ~ CASE AT 10811 CALIFORNIA ~ J . A 4TH 625. THE LANGUAGE I HAVE12 PARAPHRASED SOMEWHAT IS AT 1648 TO 1649.13 THE PLAINTIFF DOESNIT QUARREL MUCH WITH THAT.14 HER ARGtJMENT IS THAT SHE HAS PLEADED SUFFICIENT FACTS TO SHOW15 THAT ACCRUAL OF THE CLAIMS OR COMMENCEMENT OF THE RUNNING OF16 THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD WAS TOLLED, THAT IS, DELAYED BECAUSE17 SHE WAS INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING THE WRONGFULNESS OF18 DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT BECAUSE SHE WAS, SHE SAYS, ENMESHED IN A

CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT AND WAS BRAINWASHED.20 AND THIS CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP POINT IS21 ALLEGED IN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PARAGRAPH NUMBER -- JUST22 A SECOND - - MAINLY PARAGRAPH NO. 17, WHICH GOES ON FOR A23 NUMBER OF SUBPARAGRAPHS. SO - - PARDON ME .-- THE EXISTENCE OR24 NONEXISTENCE OF A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS PLAYS THE2S FOLLOWING ROLE IN THE TIME BAR ANALYSIS.26 THE GENERAL RULES RELATING TO PLEADING AND27 PROVING FACTS EXCUSING LATE DISCOVERY OF, LET'S SAY,28 SOMETHING LIKE FRAUD, ARE APPLICABLE EVEN WHEN THERE'S A

, ~ , ~ ...f .J

"-II I' "i . : ~ . ""'

21


19/28

123456789

1011121314IS16171819202122232425262728

c " .> Jj


20/28

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324

2526

272E1

( ':.,"r ., -J

!If,,... ('"-;",'"'.

9

SUICIDE.PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT SHE BELIEVED THAT IF

SHE EXERCISED HER RIGHT OF LIBERTY AND ATTEMPTED TO LEAVERPF, DEFENDANTS WOULD RETALIATE AGAINST HER. AND THATISSECTION 44. IN'SECTION 55 SHE SAID -- SHE SAYS SHE AGAINDECIDED THAT SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE THERE AND ASKED TO LEAVE.PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE BUT INSTEAD, DEFENDANTSMADE PLAINTIFF STAY UP FOR HOURS ON END AND THREATENED,INTIMIDATED, AND COERCED PLAINTIFF INTO STAYING AT THE RPF.THAT I S SECTION 55. SO PLAINTIFF KNEW THAT SHE WAS BEING HELDAGAINST HER WILL.

THEN WE GO TO PARAGRAPHS 19 , 35 , 49, 61, 77,98, AND 112. IN THOSE SECTIONS PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT SHEWAS ALLOWED TO LEAVE RPF - - "RPP" MEANS REHABILITATIONPROJECT FORCE - - BUT SHE WAS MADE TO SIGN DOCUMENTS RELEASINGANY CLAIMS THAT SHE HAD AGAINST DEFENDANTS REQUIRING HER TOKEEP CERTAIN INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL.

SHE SAYS THAT -- SHE ALLEGES THAT FROM 2004AND JULY OF 2008, SHE BELIEVED THAT BY SIGNING THOSEDOCUMENTS, SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CLAIM OR RIGHTS AGAINST THEDEFENDANTS. THIS IS PARAGRAPHS 21 , 37, 51 , 63 -- JUST ASECOND.

MS. MILLER: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD BEGmE COURT'S INDULGENCE. I AAVE TO CHECK UP IN DEPARTMENT 61.

THE COURT: YOU CAN LEAVE IF YOU WANT.MS. MILLER: APOLOGIZE.THE COURT: I'M GOING TO KEEP ON THIS DOING. I

MEAN YOU'RE l:N A HEARING HERE. BUT IF YOU DON' T WANT TO STAY

2:


21/28

10

1 FOR IT ~ 2 MS. MILLER: NO, YOUR HONOR. I UNDERSTAND. I orD3 ASK THE CLERK AND TOLD THE CLERK THAT I NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO4 CHECK IN UP - -5 THE COURT: WELL, I'M GIVING YOU PRIORITY. I DON'T6 gNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN 00 . DO YOU W'ANT ME TO TALK FASTER?

MS. MILLER: NO, YOUR HONOR. I VERY MUCHa APOLOGIZE. I'M JUST TRYING TO NOT OFFEND THIS COURT OR

THE COURT: NO, YOU'RE NOT OFFENDING ME AT ALL.10 11M JUST - - I MEAN, YOU'RE IN A HEARING HERE AND I HAVE GIVEN11 YOU PRIORITY. THAT'S WHY YOUR CASE IS BEING CALLED NOW.

THESE OTHER PEOPLE ARE WAITING AROUND. I JUST DON'T KNOW13 WHAT ELSE I CAN DO FOR YOU.14 THIS IS A LITTLE BIT LIKE THOSE SCENES IN THE15 WASTELAND, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE SAYING "TIME, TIME,16 IT'S TIME," YOU KNOW, BUT I "cAN'T -- I CAN'T - - YOU KNOW, r17 FEEL LIKE A CHARACTER OUT OF "ALICE IN WONDERLAND." I CAN'T18 RUN ANY FASTER.192021222324

MS. MILLER: I UNDERSTAND.THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

PARAGRAPH 79TO THE THING

SO THE PARAGRAPH I WAS GOING TO CHECK WAS79, PARAGRAPH 100, PARAGRAPH 114 ALSO RELATETHAT POINT THAT I JUST MADE.

BUT AS I HAVE IGNORANCE OF THE LEGAL25 SIGNIFICANCE OF KNOWN FACTS DOESNIT DELAY THE RUNNING OF THE26 STATUTE.27 THEN WE GO TO SECTIONS 96 AND 110.28 IN THERE THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT FROM 1991

(' >,t .J! .


22/28

11

1 TO 2004, SHE COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY DISCOVERED THAT SHE2 HAD A CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR FAILURE TO PAY3 MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME PAY BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT POST4 THE "WAGE AN HOUR" NOTICES THAT THEY WERE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO5 POST_ BUT THERE'S NOTHING THERE ABOUT WHY SHE COULDN'T6 DISCOVER THAT IN 2004, AFTER SHE GOT OUT OF WHAT SHE, I THINK7 REFERRED TO AS THE "DEFENDANT , S CLUTCHES."8 SO THEN WE 00 TO ALLEGATIONS IN PARAGRAPHS 22 ,9 38, 52, 64, 80 , 110 - - NOT 110 -- IT'S 101, ACTUALLY, AND

10 115.11 IN THOSE ALLEGATIONS - IN THOSE PARAGRAPHS12 THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS ESSENTIALLY THAT IN JULY, 2008, SHE ..13 REALIZED SHE MIGHT HAVE LEGAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS14 AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN CONFIDENTIALITY CONFIDENTIALITY15 AGREEMENT SHE WAS COERCED INTO SIGNING IN 2004, WERE16 POTENTIALLY INVALID BY HAVING DISCOVERED A - - A MINIMIZED WEB17 PAGE ON A fAMILY MEMBER'S COMPUTER AND TALKING TO HER FAMILY18 WHO HAD BEEN RESEARCHING THE EXPERIENCE OF EX-SCIBNTOLOGIST19 FOLLOWERS WHO WERE - - WHO HAVE LIVED AND WORKED AT THE SAME20 FACILITIES AS PLAINTIFFS.21 NOW, THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN ADMISSION THAT22 EVEN IF BY VIRTUE OF A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP, THE23 DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO DISCLOSE OR NOT TO CONCEAL24 WRONGFULNESS OF DEFENDANT I S CONDUCT AND THE POTENTIAL25 VALIDITY OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS. THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT BY26 'l'HE DEFENDANTS ONCE THE PLAINTIFP LEFT THE RPF IN 2004.27 I MEAN I HER MOMENT OF REALIZATION CAME THROUGH28 FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAD GOTTEN THE INFORMATION OVER THE


23/28

2E

12

1 INTERNET, AND THAT FREELY AVAILABLE INFORMATION WAS NOT2 SOPPRESSED, WAS REASONABLY DISCOVERABLE. CONFERRING WITH3 FAMILY MEMBERS WOULD HAVE BEEN READILY AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY.4 SHE CAN CONFER WITH HER FAMILY MEMBERS AT ANY TIME, AND5 INDEED THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT WHEN SHE DID CONFER WITH6 THEM. SHE DOESN'T ALLEGE SHE DISCOVERED A FACT WHICH WAS7 PREVIOUSLY UNAVAILABLE TO HER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.8 SO FROM THIS PLEADING, IT APPEARS THAT THE9 PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS IN 2004, WHICH WOULD

10 MAKE A REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON SUSPICIOUS WHICH WOULD GIVE11 RISE TO A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE. THEN SHE WOULD BE CHARGED12 WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED13 BY SUCH AN INVESTIGATION. THAT' S IN THAT ~ ~ ~ CASE AT14 PAGE 131. EVEN IF SHE DID NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO THE15 INTERNET, WHEN SHE LEFT SHE DID HAVE DUTY TO INVESTIGATE THE16 VALIDITY OF HER CLAIMS - - CONSULTING AN ATTORNEY - - AND SO17 FORTH.18 A CONTRACT OBTAINED BY MENACE OR DURESS IS19 VOIDABLE, NOT VOID, AND THE DEFENSE OF DURESS OR MENACE IS A20 PERSONAL DEFENSE. IT CAN BE - - IT CAN BE LOST BY FAILURE21 TIMELY TO AT CALIFORNIA22 APPELLATE 2D, 573 AT PAGE 578 SAYS THAT.23 SO THE DELAYED DISCOVERY RULE DOESN'T APPLY AT24 ANY TIME AFTER 2004. LET'S SAY THAT THE APPLICABLE2S LIMITATION PERIOD BEGAN TO RON ON J A N U A R ~ 1 , 2005, BOT AS I26 SAY, THIS CASE WAS FILED ON APRIL 4, 2009. SO ALL THE CLAIMS27 ARE TIME BARRED.28 PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL


24/28

EGAL

13

1 APPLIES TO HER CLAIMS BECAUSE SHE WAS FORCED TO SIGN THESE2 AGREEMENTS AND SO FORTH. BUT THE MILLS CASE AT 1083 CALIFORNIA APPELLATE 4TH AT PAGE NO. 62 TALKS ABOUT THAT.4 J\ND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT LULLED INTO A FALSE5 SENSE OF SECURITY. ON THE CONTRARY. SHE WAS - - SHE KNEW FROM6 THE TIME SHE WAS ALLOWED TO LEAVE THAT DEFENDANT WAS PREPARED7 TO TAKE AN 1\DVERSARIAL POSITION TO HER IN THE EVENT OF Aa FURTHER - - OF A FUTURE LAWSUIT.9 ONCE NO LONGER UNDER THE ALLEGED OPPRESSION, A

10 REASONABLE PERSON IN PLAINTIFF'S POSITION WOULD HAVE, SHOULD11 HAVE OBTAINED COUNSEL TO OBTAIN TO EVALUATE WHETHER12 PLAtNTIFF HAD ANY LEGAL RECOURSE. SHE - - SO EQUITABLE13 ESTOPPEL SEEMS TO ME DOES NOT APPLY HERE.14 THEN THERE IS THIS POINT OF COLLATERAL15 ESTOPPEL.16 SHE CONTENDS THAT -- THE PLAINTIFF CONTENDS17 THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS ALREADY RULED THAT THE FOUR-YEAR18 LIMITATION BEGAN TO RUN WHEN SHE LEFT THE - - THE - - I'M SORRY19 - - THE DEFENDANT SAYS THAT THE - - THE FOUR-YEAR LIMITATION20 PERIOD BEGAN TO RUN ON APRIL 8, 2004, AND THAT I'M BOUND BY21 THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID.22 I AM NOT ADOPTING THAT ARGUMENT. THAT WAS NOT23 A DECISION ON THE MERITS. IN MY VIEW. AND THE CASE ON THAT24 IS K-O-C-H, 1990, 223 CALIFORNIA APPELLATE 3D, 1591.25 AND ALSO, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY26 BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE'S DECISION WAS PART OF THE27 DECISION IN THIS LITIGATION AND IT IS NOT RENDERED AS PART OF28 PRIOR LITIGATION. AND THE WAY THAT COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL WORKS


25/28

1 IS THAT THERE HAS TO BE A PRIOR CASE WHICH IS CONCLUDED, BUT2 THE DISTRICT COURT'S DETERMINATION WAS A DECISION IN THIS3 VERY CASE. SO I'M NOT APPLYING THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL4 POINT.5 THE COURT DENIES LEAVE TO AMEND. THIS ACTION6 IS ORDERED DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. ALL DEFENDANTS ARE7 AWARDED THEIR COSTS OF SUIT HEREIN IN THE AMOUNT OF; DOLLARa SIGN BLANK AS TO EACH DEFENDANT.9 THE CLERK IS TO PREPARE AN ORDER SO PROVIDING

10 FOR THE COURT'S SIGNATURE. THE COURT WILLSIGN IT TODAY.11 AND THE CASE IS ORDERED REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE LIST.12 SCHBDULED DATES, IF ANY, ARE ADVANCED AND VACATED.13 THANK YOU VERY MUCH.14

1516171819202122232425262728

,-""-, . ,1

MS. MILLER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.MR. MARMARO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED.)

(I/J ". ...~ ; . .....r)'"


26/28

1

2345678.9

10111213

1415161718192021222324

25262728

.. -1

ell ' ,M !""'".....r...

1"$

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESDEPARTMENT 41 HON. RONALD M. SOHIGIAN, JUDGE


VS.CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL,

DEFENDANTS,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SSCOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

))})) CASE NO. BC41101S})) REPORTER'Si CERTIFICATE)

I , ANGELA Z. PARADBLA, CSR NO. 9659, OFFICIAL REPORTEROF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THECOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOINGPAGES 1 THROUGH 14 COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECTTRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS HELD ON APRIL 30,2010 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.

MAY 4, 2010

CSR NO. 9659OFFICIAL REPORTER


27/28

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COLINTY Of LOS ANGELES3 I declare that: I am employed inlhe county of Los Angeles. California. I am over the age oreighteen years and not a party to the \ ...ithin cause: my business address is 2049 Century Park4 Suite 3200, Los Angeles, California 90067-3206.5 On May 25. 2010, I served the I n r ~ p t " n document, described as:67 I!l89 o10

(pROPOSEDI ORDERby placing 0 the original a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopesaddressed as follows:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST(By Fax) By transmitting a true and correct copy thereof via facsimile transmission10

II (By Mail) I am "readily familiar" with the practice of collection andprocessing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice. it would be deposited12 with U.S. postal service on that same day \"'ilh postage thereon fully prepaid al LosA California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion13 of arty served. service is presumed invalid i f postal cancellation date orpostage meter date is more than one day after date ofdeposit for mailing in14 amdavil.15 016 I!l17

(By Personal Service) By personally delivering such envelope to the addressee.By causing such envelope to be delivered by the office of the addressee byOVERNIGIIT DELIVERY via Federal or by other similar overnightdelivery service.

18 (State) I declare under penalty ofpeljury under the laws of the Stale of Californiathat the above is true and correct.19 o (Federal) I that J am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this20 court at whose direction the service was made.21 Executed on May 2010 at Los Angeles. California.

2324252627

~ , , ~ 5347/21051-006 Currenlf19t25853v1if?....

31


28/28

2 Raphael Metzger.Metzger law Group3 40 I E. Ocean Blvd .. Suite 800Long Beach, CA 90802-49664 Barry Van Sickle, Esq.5 1079 Sunrise Avenue. Suite B-315Roseville. CA 956616 Marc Marmaro, Esq.7 JetTer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP1900 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh Floor8 Los Angeles. CA 90067-43089 Kendrick L. Moxon,Moxon & Kobrin10 3055 Wilshire Blvd .. Suite 900Los Angeles, CA 900 I0

I I

121314151617

1819202122

2627

3:

SERV1CE LISTBY FEDERAL EXPRESS

BY U.S. MAil

8Y U.S. MAIL

BY U.S. MAIL

Documents

Laura DeCrescenzo - Notice of Entry of Judgment