Bixler v. Superior Court

1

CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER, et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent;

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

B310559

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

January 19, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV29458 Steven J Kleifield, Judge.

Thompson Law Offices, Robert W. Thompson and Marci A Hamilton for Petitioners.

Leslie C. Griffin, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law, for Law and Religion Professors as Amici Curiae for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Winston & Strawn, William H. Forman, David C. Scheper and Margaret E. Dayton for Real Parties in Interest Church of Scientology International and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International.

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, Robert E. Mangels and Matthew D. Hinks for Real Party in Interest Religious Technology Center.

Lavely & Singer, Andrew B. Brettler and Martin F. Hirshland for Real Party in Interest Daniel Masterson.

RUBIN P. J.

Petitioners in this writ proceeding are former members of the Church of Scientology who reported to the police that another Church member had raped them. They allege that, in retaliation for their reports, the Church encouraged its members to engage in a vicious campaign of harassment against them. After petitioners brought suit in superior court against the Church and related entities and persons, some of those defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on agreements that provided all disputes with the Church would be resolved according to the Church's own "Ethics, Justice and Binding Religious Arbitration system." That system was created to decide matters "in accordance with Scientology principles of justice and fairness."

The trial court granted the motion to compel, and petitioners sought writ relief. We issued an order to show cause, and now grant the petition. Individuals have a First Amendment right to leave a religion. 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. We issue a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and instead to deny the motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Allegations of the Operative Complaint

The operative complaint is the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs are Chrissie Carnell Bixler, her husband Cedric Bixler-Zavala, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, and Marie Riales. Riales was not a member of the Church, was not subject to the order compelling arbitration, and is not party to the current writ proceeding. As such, we use "petitioners" to refer to all plaintiffs except Riales.

The defendants are Church of Scientology International, Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International, Daniel Masterson and David Miscavige.^[1]Plaintiffs allege that Church of Scientology International and Religious Technology Center "along with a network of Scientology organizations that sit underneath [them], including [Celebrity Centre International], make up what is informally known to the public as 'The Church of Scientology' or 'Scientology.'" We collectively refer to the institutional defendants as "Scientology" or "the Church." Defendant Masterson is an individual member of the Church. Plaintiffs allege both that Masterson was an agent of the Church, and that the Church was an agent of Masterson.^[2] The Church and Masterson are real parties in interest in this writ proceeding.

Plaintiffs Bixler, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, and Riales each allege that Masterson raped them. This, however, is not the gravamen of their complaint in this case; in fact, they state no cause of action against Masterson for sexual assault.^[3] Instead, they allege causes of action against all defendants for stalking (Civ. Code, § 1708.7), physical invasion of privacy (§ 1708.8, subd. (a)), constructive invasion of privacy (id., at subd. (b)), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (as to plaintiff Bixler-Zavala) loss of consortium. We summarize the allegations supporting these causes of action:^[4]

According to plaintiffs, Scientology forbids members from contacting police to report a crime committed by a member. It instructs members that reporting such incidents is considered a "high crime" and subjects the reporting member to punishment. Scientology utilizes so-called "Fair Game" tactics to "attack, harass, embarrass, humiliate, destroy, and/or injure individuals who Defendants declare to be an enemy of Scientology, known in Scientology as a 'Suppressive Person' . . . ." Masterson is a television actor; Scientology granted him special treatment when he achieved "celebrity status." To that end, Scientology worked to prevent plaintiffs from reporting Masterson's crimes and, once they did, declared plaintiffs Suppressive Persons. Scientology then mobilized an aggressive Fair Game campaign against them.

While the Fair Game campaigns against each plaintiff differed, collectively plaintiffs allege Scientology's agents committed the following acts against them: surveilled them, hacked their security systems, filmed them, chased them, hacked their email, killed (and attempted to kill) their pets, tapped their phones, incited others to harass them, threatened to kill them, broke their locks, broke into their cars, ran them off the road, posted fake ads purporting to be from them soliciting anal sex from strangers, broke their windows, set the outside of their home on fire, went through their trash, and poisoned trees in their yards. This conduct was alleged to be pursuant to Scientology's policies and procedures. According to plaintiffs' complaint, Scientology's directives are that Suppressive Persons are to be silenced by whatever means necessary. Scientology instructs members "to damage the person's professional reputation, file frivolous lawsuits, and harass and surveil 'the enemy.'" Scientology's "policies and procedures encourage and/or instruct followers to 'ruin [the individual] utterly.' "

It will become relevant to our analysis whether the claimed tortious conduct on which petitioners sue took place before or after they left Scientology.^[5] While petitioners have clearly represented they are not seeking to recover from Scientology for the sexual assaults themselves, the allegations of petitioners' complaint include allegations relating to Scientology's attempts to cover up the sexual assaults while petitioners were still members. These include, for example, Jane Doe #1's allegation that, when she reported that Masterson had raped her to her Scientology ethics officer, he required her to do an ethics program which pressured her into confessing the "evil purposes" she had toward Masterson and Scientology. Jane Doe #1 alleged that, while she was still a member, she was given a formal censure within the church, called a "non-enturbulation order." Similarly, Bixler alleged that, while she was still a member, Scientology forced her to sign a document stating she would never speak publicly about her relationship with Masterson or sue him for any reason.

In addition to events occurring while still a Scientology member, each petitioner alleged an invasive Fair Game campaign occurring entirely after she had left the church.^[6]Bixler alleged that she formally terminated her relationship with the Church in October 2016, then reported Masterson to the police. It was only after her report that she was declared a Suppressive Person and she and her husband were subjected to the Fair Game campaign. Jane Doe #1 learned in June 2005 that she had been declared a Suppressive Person and was no longer permitted to engage in religious services at the Church. More than a decade later (after she asked the LAPD to reopen its investigation into Masterson), the Church commenced its Fair Game campaign against her. Jane Doe #2 ceased practicing Scientology entirely in 2004. In 2017, she reported Masterson's assault to the LAPD, at which point the Fair Game harassment began.

As to whether the conduct that occurred while petitioners were still Church members was actionable, or merely background the complaint was not entirely clear. Plaintiffs included conspiracy allegations, which alleged Scientology "engaged in wrongful conduct, including but not limited to information suppression, coercion, deception, stalking, harassment, surveillance, threats, vandalism, theft, and/or fraud." "Information suppression" and "coercion" could include the pre-Fair Game (and pre-separation) attempts to force petitioners to be silent about the rapes. However, when it came time to allege the facts supporting each individual cause of action, plaintiffs' focus was limited to the Fair Game campaigns themselves. For example, the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress: Although the cause of action incorporates the earlier foundational facts, it does not allege that any wrong took place prior to separation. Instead, the cause of action alleges, "Defendants surveilled, harassed, stalked, and photographed Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants trespassed on Plaintiffs' personal property, looked in windows, followed and stalked, hacked personal online accounts and emails, engaged in surveillance of and interference with Plaintiffs' daily lives, and/or called, and/or texted, and/or otherwise attempted to communicate repeatedly." In sum, it appears that the vast...