LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL METZGER 401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 3 2 : BLUMBERG LAW CORPORATION JOHN P. BLUMBERG, ESQ. (SBN 70200) 444 W. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 1500 LONG BEACH, CA 90802 TELEPHONE: (562) 437-0403 TELECOPIER: (562) 432-0107 METZGER LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ. (SBN 116020) KATHRYN SALDANA, ESQ. (SBN 251364) 401 E. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 800 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4966 TELEPHONE: (562) 437-4499 TELECOPIER: (562) 436-1561 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAURA ANN DECRESCENZO © recess onan FILE ace Super Ca aes OCT 08 2015 Le Raul Sanche SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO, aka LAURA A. DIECKMAN, Plaintiffs, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity, AND DOES 1 - 20, Defendants. CASE NO. BC411018 Reassigned to the Honorable Rolf M. Treu, Dept. 58 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION DATE: October 22, 2015 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT: 58 Filed concurrently with (1) Decl of Kathryn Saldana in Opp to Os’ MSA; (2) Decl of Laura Ann Diecknan in Opp to Os’ MSA; (3) Decl of Claudia L. “Toddy" Dieckman in Opp to As’ MSA; (4) Decl of Robert V. Levine, Ph.D., in Opp to As MSA; (5) Separate Statement of Disputed & Undisputed Facts in Opp to Os’ MSA; (6) Objections to Evidence submitted by ‘a9 in Support of Their MSA; (7) [Proposed] Order Re Objections to Evidence; and (8) Notice of Lodgment of Foreign Authorities PLAINTIFFS’ DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONREE ttre TEES SEES TESCO EEE TEESE OEE TESCEE OEE TErECE OTERO EE EEE TEE TEE @ oe $ 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ; 2 PAGE 3 3. || L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 ¥ 4 || I STATEMENT OFFACTS .....0.....00000::000cseeeeeees Gospadacononcon 7 gs 5 A. Defendants rene Induced Plaintiff to Join the Sea 8 Org at at ge Age 12 2 6 B. Defendants’ Control on Plaintif’s Communications With Her Family ......... 2 7 C. Life History Questionnaires 3 8 D. Schedule in the Sea Org ........0000se000 4 9 4 ° E, Schooling .........000.065 .4 | I 58z F. _ Plaintiff's Ability to Leave the Sea Org 4 gag i «ese G. Plaintiffs Forced Abortion 5 wees 12 SReee H. Plaintiff Was Physically Prevented From Leaving the Sea Org and ebos 13 Mentally Wom Down ..... feces 7 g2538 aug 14 1. Rehabilitation Project Force . 10 g375 33835 15 J. Plaintiff Unknowingly Subjected Herself to Coercive Persuasion . n Shes @35e 16 || U. PLAINTIFF DIDNOT QUALIFY AS A MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE fag MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION . . sevee +32 17 o A. Plaintiff Lacked the Capacity to to Consent to Being a Minister at 1B Age Twelve ....eccesecesseceeecerseneees : 1 19 B. Plant Was Incpable of Consenting to Being a Minister Even as am Adult... 0.00.06. c cece eee cece eee e eee . 13 20 c. Defendants’ Attempts to Classify All eee of the Church of a Scientology as Ministers is Subterfuge ...... aren 14 22: 22 || IV. THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” DOES NOT BAR ALL CLAIMS ARISING Hao, DURING THE CHURCH-MINISTER RELATIONSHIP 00... .20000c2e0ceseee 4 eyez 2: 2pee V. THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” IS CONFINED TO WHAT IS REQUIRED ecg! 24 TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DOES NOT PROVIDE, sas RELIGIONS A SHIELD FROM ALL LIABILITY ........... see 16 fire bate ‘A. Religious Freedom Under the Free Exercise Clause Is Not Absolute geek 26 and Religious Conduct May be Subject o Regulation forthe Protection 2238 of Society ....... wees 16 ogy 27 553s B. The Establishment Clause Does Not Bar the Imposition of Tort Liability Feg2 28 Against Religions ........ 7] | PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONRAPHAEL METZGER 1A POF LESIUNAL LAW CORPORATION 401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 be _ LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA soB02-496e ® @ oecessensesss onan me VI. THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CLAIMS OF MINORS . : 18 ‘VII. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR SOLICITATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY MISREPRESENTATION IS NOT BARRED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ADDRESS THIS CLAIM IN THEIR MOTION 18 ‘VIII. DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON PLAINTIFF'S INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM .......... ceceeeeee 23 A. The Ministerial Exception and Free Exercise/Establishment Clauses Do Not Bar Plaintiff's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim ........ 2B B, There are Triable Issues of Fact as to Plaintiff's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim... 2.02. ...cccececceeeeeeseeeeeeeee . 25 IX. DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON PLAINTIFF'S FALSE IMPRISONMENT/DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY CLAIMS 2.000000 cccceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees . 27 A. The Ministerial Exception and Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses Do Not Bar Plaintiff's False Imprisonment or Deprivation of Liberty Claims bev eveceteneteeeeeeteeeeeees is . 27 B. There are Triable Issues of Fact With ee to Plaintiff's Claim for False Imprisonment - 28 1 Specific Instances of False Imprisonment tym Threat of Force and Physical Barriers Exist in This Case . . 29 2. False Imprisonment by Physical Barriers and Fraud/Deceit and Unreasonable Duress Also Exist in this Case ......00...00000e020- 30 C. _ Triable Issues of Fact Exist as to Plaintiff's Deprivation of Liberty Claim ...... 31 — DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON PLAINTIFF'S INVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIMS . . wees 3B A. The First Amendment Does Not Trump Plaintiff's Basic and Fundamental Right to Privacy in Choosing Whether to Continue Her Pregnancy ........... 33 B, __Triable Issues of Fact Exist as to Plaintiff's Common Law Invasion of Piivecy Claunpepieemernree Bene ee 37 C. _ Triable Issues of Fact Exist as to Plaintiff's Constitutional Invasion of Privacy Claim ...0.0000cccseceeeeeeeteeeeeeeeseeeeees 39 XI, THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION AND FREE EXERCISE AND ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSES DO NOT BAR PLAINTIFF'S WAGE AND HOUR CLAIMS AND TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT EXIST WITH RESPECT TO THESE CLAIMS 40 XI. CONCLUSION 40 iti PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION® oS. $ 1 TABLI (ORITIES i 2 PAGE i 3 CASES : 4 Agostini v. Felton 3 (1997) 521 US. 203.22... .17 : 5 3 Alcazar . Corp of the Catholic Archbishop of Seale 6 (Sth Cir, 2010) 627 F.3d 1288 . . 12,14 7 || Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493... 25 8 Alterauge v. Los Angeles Turf Club 9 (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 735 ..... . 29 10 || Am. Acad. of Pediatrics v. Lungren 283 (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307 34,35 Bug il 0 f58 Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. Bias 2 (2007) 149 Cal. App.th 860.6... eee eee eee ee cece cece eeeeeeettreeeeeeeeee 31 SREgS glizgz 13 || Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp. o28a6 (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 525 32 $q282 14 3aezo Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church SERez 15 (Pa. 1975) 341 A.2d 105 ved e cee decee et eeeevetreeteseeeseees 33 183 &558 16 || Bollard. Cal. Province of the Soc'y of Jesus ig (9 Cir. 1999) 196 F.3d 940. eee + 14-17, 22 <3 17 g Braunfield v. Brown 18 (1961) 366 U.S. 599 Ot 19 || Brock v, Wendell's Woodwork, Inc. (4th Cir, 1989) 867 F.2d 196 . Candy H. v. Redemption Ranch, Inc. 21 (VLD WAls"1083) 563)F:Supp 50s ee ee 27 32 22 || Cantwell v. State of Conn. wo (1940) 310 US. 296 . 16,20 Hl Carrieri v. Bush g28° 24 (1966) 419 P.2d 132. 33 eee £824 25 || Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court diet (2004) 32 Caldth S27 oo. eveeeeeevsevseeseeeetessevseveevserseeseees IS giz! 26 Fes Cervantez v. J.C. Penney Co. Bige 27 (1979) 24 Cal 30 579 eee eeeceececseeseescesseeteeeseessetseeseeseese 26 ing? 28 F iv PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONgo Ra gee abes ee3d baig 3232 ages gs eee ei e eS Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868... . 25 Collins v. County of Los Angeles (1966) 2401GaUApp2d450¢ eee ee 28 Comm. to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981) 29 Cal.3d 252 : 4 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm. (1993)/509 US5S70Rieer eee es i Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197 oc eceeeeceeeee cece cece eeetttttttetstseseeeeeeeees 25 Easton v, Sutter Coast Hospital (2000) 80 C3l'Appadra8S) fe - 28 EEOC v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass'n (9" Cir. 1982) 676 F.2d 1272..... i Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 US. 438 0... e cece eee eee eee teeter ee tereeeees 34 Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church (Sth Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 951 oo... eevee eeeee eee cece eeceeeeeees 14, 16,17 Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church (Sth Cit. 2005) 397 F.3d 790 00.0... eevee eeccceeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeen ress 12,14 Fairfield v_Am. Photocopy Equip. Co. (1955) 138 Cal-App.2d 82 0.0.0.0... esse baoqdeqen6 - 38 Fermino v. Fedco, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal-4th 701 . 28,29 Grove v, Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354 (Oth Cir, 1985) 753 F.2d 1528 o.oo... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeecees 16 Guinn v. The Church of Christ of Collinsville (Okla. 1989) 775 P.2d 766 .......... ee a8 Hamburg v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal. App4th 497.2... e cece eee veeeeeeeeettreeeeeeeees 19 Hanna v. Raphael Weill & Co. (1949) 90 CalApp.24 461 0... cee eee ee cece cece cece eceeeeeesttseeeeeeeeee 28: Headley v. Church of Scientology Int'l (Oth Cir. 2012) 687 F.3d 1173 ee 157, Heard v. Johnson (D.C. App. Ct. 2002) 810 A.2d 871... 15,27 v PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION® er $ Henry ved Bill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tstn + (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1041.0... ee 16 3 Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. i (2009) 47 Cal.4th 272 .37 y Higgins v. Maher pg (1989) 210 Cal. App.3d 1168 0.00.0... ee cee ee eee ee eee ceceeeeeeeees 15,27 z Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 Calsth De. eeeceeeecsseeeeessseeeeecsseeeeess 32,34, 37,39 Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v, EEOC (2012) 1328. Ct. 694.00 ee ey Is Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equal. of Cal. (1990) 493 U.S, 378 17 10 |) Jones v. Kmart Corp. 33k (1998) 17 Caltth 329 eee eeeceseeeetseeteestttetertttetersseee 31 Bue 11 weed KOVR-TY, Inc. v. Superior Court Beez 12 (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1023 ceteeeeeeeeeeees 25 SNSES ghesz 13 || Lemony. Kurteman S236 (1971) 403 U.S. 602... 0.0... e eee ce eee ec eee eee pocadenacdedes ld gauss 14 34ez0 Little v. Stuyvesant Life Insurance Co. S23a2 15 (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 451 22... ee ceeeeeees ee 26 S288 ®352 16 || Lyons, Fire Ins. Exchange ig (2008) 161 Cal. App.4th 880 28 <3 17 * Malik v. Brown 18 (Sth Cit, 1994) 16 F.3d 330 o.oo eee eereterettterteereterens 16 19 || McCullen v. Coakley (2014) _US._, 134S.Ct. 2518 38 20 | Miller v. Nat'l Broadcasting Co. 21 (1986) 187 Cal. App:3d 1463.20... 2 ee ceeeeeeee beveeteteeeseeseres 34,38 (32 22 |] Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n yah (1988) 46-Cal 341092 ooo ec ee eee cece eee eeeeeeee e135 20-27,35,36 | ges? 93 pee Munoz v. Kaiser Steel Corp. gs! 24 (1984) 156 Cal. App.3d 965.62... eeecceeeeeeeseeteeeeerseteeessetereens 19 £82% 25 || O'Moore v. Driscoll ise (1933) 135 Cal. App. 770 2... ccccceeecsecseeeessseeeeeeersseeeesssteeeess 27 gz? 26 eect Patton v. Jones See 27 (Texas App. Ct. 2006) 212 8.W.3d 541... 15,24, 27 eg! 28 r vi | , PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONwi38 eae abhee ates geile ba 282 235i. “435 Bind aig People v. Belous ree ((1969)71 ald 95 People v. Dominguez (2010) 180 Cal. App.4th 1351 E29) People v. Garziano (1991) 230 Ca App 3d 24le ee : ee ae Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal. App.4th 402 . 40 Planned Parenthood of Se, Pennsylvania v Casey (1992) 505 US. 833... pp654bG04n5555505—90000 oe Potter v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965 cece eee cece cece cece cece ste tttttstteeeeeeee 25 Prince v. Mass. (1944) 321 US. 158.0... pls Rayburn v, Gen. Conf. Of Seventh-Day Adventists (4th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 1164. -17 Reynolds v. US. (1878) 98) U:S4145 eee ce ee ee ee eee ee ee 1660) Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (2003) 106 Cal. App.4th 257 - 26 Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 US.113 ooo eeeeeeeeee . 34 Sanchez-Scott v. Alza Pharm. (2001) 86 Cal.Appth 365 6.0.0... cece cece eeeeeeeeeees seceeeeeeees 37,38 Schanafelt v. Seaboard Finance Co. (1951) 108 Cal.App. 420 - 28 Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Ine. (1996) 45 Cal.App4th 990... . 28,29 Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 US 408 ces e e e e 15 227) Snyder v, Evangelical Orthodox Church (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 297 «0.0... 2..ceceee . 24,27 Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria (7th Cir. 2006) 442 F.3d 1036 14 Tyco Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (Richards) (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 148 219 vii PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONRAPHAEL METZGER LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802-4966 IevinonentaL une % =F Apa cewemonn Beeusstiowan & US. v. Lee (1982) 455 U.S. 252.0... ...ceee reste es Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology (1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125 . Vandiveer v. Charters (1930) 110 Cal.App. 347 . Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 820 0... eee eeee ce eeeseeeeceveeeeeeeseeeeeteneeeeee Walz v. Tax Comm'n (1979) 397 U.S. 664... Wilson v. Houston Funeral Home (1996) 42 Cal.4th 1124 ..... Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205 00... 00 cece veee ee eeeee anette eeeeeeeeeen eres STATUTES Business & Professions Code § 22706(b)(3) Civil Code § 1556 .. Civil Code § 52.1... Civil Code § 52.1 (a) and (b) Education Code § 48200 0.2... 0.2. 0cceeceveeeeeeeeeeeeese essen ees Evidence Code § 801(1).........00.06+ Family Code § 302 . Family Code §§ 6910, 6911, 6922 Health & Safety Code § 123930 ........ Labor Code § 1194. Labor Code § 1391(@)(1), (3) -.-2.0.es Labor Code § 970 .......secceeceeees Penal Code § 261.5 ...0..00cecseeees Penal Code §§ 652, 653... -...00seeee Probate Code § 3500 Vehicle Code §§ 17700, 17701 .. viii oe PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONRAPHAEL METZGER 40} EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 SE. ERE edctiar te Eviowliewsae Lune Assembly Bill 2719 (Stats. 2000, ch. 98) .. OTHER AUTHORITH California Constitution, Article I, Section 1 Restatement Second of Torts, Section 652B USS. Constitution, Amendment XXVI....... ix br 32 . 32 37 12 PLAINTIFFS’ DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONRAPHAEL METZGER ® Cee MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Ina cavalier and callous fashion, Defendants claim that Plaintiff is not entitled to pursue any of her claims because Plaintiff “assumed the risk” in joining Defendants’ Sea Organization, and “churches have a right to accept and rely upon such a commitment.” (Defendants? Brief, p.27). What Defendants forget, or more likely intentionally ignore, is that Plaintiff was fraudulently induced to join the Sea Organization and move away from her family at the incredibly young age of twelve, and thereafter was subjected to years of coercive persuasion at the hands of Defendants, such that she lost her ability to freely make choices about whether she should remain in the Sea Organization, whether she should submit to Defendants’ disciplinary procedures, and whether she should have a child, among other important decisions. The bottom line is that churches who fraudulently induce children to join their organizations and engage in coercive persuasion are not entitled to claim judicial immunity from claims made by such individuals. Given that Plaintiff was only a child when she joined the Sea Organization, she did not have the capacity to consent, let alone the ability to fully understand the ramifications of joining a “religious order,” such that she was not a “minister” for purposes of the ministerial exception. Once Plaintiff was of consenting age, she had been under Defendants’ coercive persuasion for six years and was so indoctrinated by Defendants that she lost her ability to freely consent to being a member of the Sea Organization, such that she was not a “minister” even during her time as an adult. Further, the ministerial exception is limited to what is necessary to comply with the First Amendment. As addressed in detail below, each of Plaintiff's claims are permissible under the First Amendment and courts have specifically permitted claims for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy against religious institutions in cases involving unusual and egregious facts such as the facts presented in this case. Triable issues of fact also exist with respect to each and every one of Plaintiff's claims, including Plaintiff's claim for solicit nn by misrepresentation, which Defendants nowhere address in their moving papers. 1 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONRAPHAEL METZGER Z 3 3 TONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 808 S Secueatiovan & ® Cee I, STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Defendants Fraudulently Induced Plaintiff to Join the Sea Org at Age 12 Plaintiff was raised in CSI, and attended Scientology schools for most of her young childhood. [Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts (“PSUF”), Nos. 1-2] She began volunteering with CSI at, age 6 or 7. Atage 12, Defendants recruited her to move away from her family in New Mexico and join CSI’s Sea Organization (Sea Org) in Los Angeles. [PSUF, Nos. 3-5] Three important promises were ‘made to Plaintiff when she was recruited: (1) She would be able to have kids when she was older; (2) she would be able to go home every couple of months to see her parents, and; (3) she would continue to go to school. [PSUF, No. 6] Plaintiff also was told that she would only work hours consistent with being a minor, and she would be able to regularly communicate with her parents. [Jd] Without these promises, Plaintiff would not have agreed to uproot her life and join the Sea Org. [Jd.] With respect to having children, Plaintiff testified adamantly: I would never have joined the Sea Organization if had been told that I couldn't have kids... I've always from the beginning of my life wanted children ...I told my family and everybody when I was 12 years old, okay, I will be back after iim married. [/d.] Defendants also made promises to Plaintiff's mother regarding Plaintiff's membership in the Sea Org. [PSUF, Nos. 7-17] Specifically, she was assured that Plaintiff would continue to receive a traditional, non-Scientology education until she was at least sixteen, would work hours appropriate for a minor, would be able to come and visit her and her husband once a month if they paid for her travel, and would be able to speak with her parents regularly. [PSUF, Nos. 8-11] Plaintiff's mother was also told her daughter’s physical and emotional well-being would be looked after including regular medical care and em« ynal support from the person who recruited her, Shane Whitmore. [PSUF, Nos. 12-16] Plaintiff's mother was also told that her daughter would be allowed to get married and have children in the future, and that when this occurred, Plaintiff would work at a different organization within CSI. [PSUF, Nos. 13-14] Similar promises were made to other young Sea Org recruits. [PSUF, No. 18] The promises made to Plaintiff and her mother were willful lies to induce Plaintiff to join the Sea Org and unknowingly subject herself to Scientology's coercive persuasion. B. Defendants’ Control on Plaintiff's Communications With Her Family Upon joining the Sea Org, CSI controlled Plaintiff's communications with her family. [PSUF, ‘No. 21] They read and approved all incoming and outgoing mail, and listened in on all telephone calls. 2 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL METZGER A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802-4066 ® @ orcisrsnusss0 cnn Plaintiff was repeatedly questioned by CSI about her communications with family, to the point that Plaintiff became fearful she would be subjected to punishment f she told her family members anything negative about Sea Org or Scientology, because she was trained from the time that she entered the Sea Org that if she said any negative to anyone, she would be found in treason and assigned demeaning tasks outside her normal long working hours. [PSUF, Nos. 22-52] She also was required to report anything that her family did that was negative or antagonistic to Scientology. {/bid.] Plaintiff was prevented from regularly seeing her family. [/bid] As young as 12, she was physically stopped from leaving to see her family. [PSUF, No. 50] During her entire time in the Sea Org, she was required to undergo a “sec check” before leaving to see her family. [PSUF, No. 50] A “sec check” is an interrogation tool used by CSI. [PSUF, No. 50] When someone is taking time off, they are required to undergo a sec check, and are asked if they intend to not return, if they intend to reveal confidential information, or if they will be in contact with anyone antagonistic of Scientology, tc. [Jbid.] Only when the examiner determines the person is being truthful and does not intend to leave permanently or for an “improper” purpose will the person be allowed to leave. [PSUF, Nos. 49-52, 60). Asa direct result of CSI’s coercive practices, Plaintiff went for as long as 2-3 years without returning home or seeing her parents primarily because she was not given “authorization” by CSI to see her own family. [PSUF, No. 52] When she was able to communicate with her parents, the conversations were limited and controlled by what CSI demanded from her. [PSUF, Nos. 22-52] On the few occasions Plaintiff was permitted to visit her family, she was convinced that Church officials would leam if she said anything negative or expressed a desire to leave based on their extensive interrogation. [Ibid.] oe Life History Questionnaires Both before and during Plaintiff's time in the Sea Org, she was required to fill out invasive “Life History Questionnaires”, that sought detailed information about her and her fami including: “Have youever been connected to anyone who has threatened or attacked Scientology?” “Note any instances of homosexual activity from earliest time up to PT. Give whom? What done? And how often?” “Please give exact details conceming your current life: whom you live with, whom you spend your free time with or run around with, etc. What is your daily routine? What do you do with your leisure time?” 3 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONane esas yobse obese tusge g2255 b4585 geez6 apbse ease eee8 fig ig a Cerne one os ee ee BR ‘HOvaa ONOT . i 008 31Ins “QUVASINOG NVID0 1sva Lor satunew 21x01 any ‘wa2nv> “aevasio 439213 TavHave — — ~~ Shier kreaivensnes sanie8e ——————— sanadoanas NOLO MUL WNOISSSJONd Y osLaw oFFIces OF RAPHACL METZGER ; 3 i 2 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e @ cise seston ome PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. my business address is 401 East Ocean Blvd., #800, Long Beach, CA 90802. On October 8, 2015, T served the foregoing document, described as: PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION on the parties to chis action as follows: __ (BY MAIL) I caused copies of such document, enclosed in sealed envelopes, to be deposited in the mail at Long Beach, California with postage thereon fully prepaid to the persons and addresses indicated on the attached list. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of any party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing set forth in this affidavit. (BY FACSIMILE) I served the foregoing document by faxing true copies thereof from facsimile number (562) 436-1561, to the facsimile numbers indicated on the attached list. Said document was transmitted by facsimile transmission, which was reported complete and without error. ____ (3Y PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused to be delivered such document by hand to the firms listed on the attached list where personal service is indicated. (3¥ E-MAIL) I delivered such document by electronic mail to the firms listed on the attached list. X__ (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) T caused such document to be delivered to the firms indicated on the attached list by Express Mail or by another express service carrier, by placing the document in an envelope designated by the carrier and addressed as indicated on the attached list, with the delivery fees provided for, and depositing same in a box or facility regularly maintained by that’ carrier or by delivering same to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the carrier to receive documents. X_ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State Of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of this court, at whose direction service was made. Executed on October 8, 2015, at Long Beach, California. Nina S. Vidal, Declarant 42 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONe ost: szon onan gzge SERVICE LIST ees (Decrescenzo v. Church of Scientology, Case No. BC411018) Rage = 2 we ~o00- aise 3 a Bert H. Dele, Beg yBE2 4 || wicholas F. paum, Esq. gest Kendall Brill + Kelly LiP ges 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., suite 1725 zPe Les Angeles, CA 90067 6 || cctuzch of Scientology International) 7 || robert &. mangets, aq. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Witchell 8 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-4208 9 || trerigious tecmotogy center) 10 8 Bus 1 wiss teotaced 1877s ae G243 12 SRBEs WsGe $3595 sayfa 33532 15 5432 Z558 16 rag “38 17 18 19 20 21 oeig. 22 bas? 23 ease 24 PESe fEi< 25 Siz 26 oekg 27 i232 28 " 43 o PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONe @ nreecreescconnin ttn int PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 401 East Ocean Blvd., #800, Long Beach, CA 90802. on October 8, 2015, I served the foregoing document, described as: PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION on the parties to this action as follows: X_ (BY MAIL) I caused copies of such document, enclosed in sealed 8 || envelopes, to be deposited in the mail at Long Beach, California with postage thereon fully prepaid to the persons and addresses indicated on the 9 || attached list. I am ‘readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collecting end processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with 10 || u.s. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. ais Tan aware that on motion of any party served, service is presumed invalid 508 11 |] if che postal cancellation date or postage meter date is wore than one day GEE 2 || after the ante of deposit for mailing set forth in thie afficavic. wees Shas: (a¥ FACSIMILE) I served the foregoing document by faxing true 26282 13 |) copies thereof fron facsimile number (562) 436-1561, to the facsimile Pesety numbers ind:.cated on the attached list. Said document’ was transmitted by Bugg 14 |] facsimite transmission, which was reported complete and without error. Peery 3B 3h 15 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused to be delivered such document by S288 hand to the firms listed on the attached list where personal service is @558 16 || indicated. ag <53 17 (BY E-MAIL) I delivered such document by electronic mail to the a firms listed on the attached list. 18 (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I caused such document to be delivered to 19 || the sizms indicated on the attached list by Express Mail or by another express service carrier, by placing the document in an envelope designated 20 |] by the carrier and addressed as indicated on the attached list, with the delivery fees provided for, and depositing same in a box or facility 21 || regularly meintained by that carrier or by delivering same to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the carrier to receive documents. sp 22 2353 __X (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the $74? 23 || state of california that the above is true and correct. gis 24 (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a iSe member of this court, at whose direction service was made. ERE< 25 bead Executed on October 8, 2015, at Long Beach, California ni a Sexy 27 _h&— (a gees Nina S. Vidal, Declarant Ee35 28 44 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONgrag 1 SERVICE LIST aBbe (Decrescenzo v. Church of Scientology, Case No. BC411018) fest 2 wee -o00- ab 5 3 yE83 4 |] exicm. nieberman (pro hac vice) at3s Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & £28 5 |] tieberman, P.c. zPe 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 6 |] New vork, wr 12006 (Church Of Scientology International) 7 John P. Blunbe:g, Esq. 8 || stunberg Law corporation 444 W, Ocean Blvd., suite 1500 9 || cong Beach, ca s0802 (Plaintifs) ° 10 283 BGS 11 || cnces sverns ao 2258 wees 12 eee S2538 kai85 14 omzes 325 32355 1s 2338 7 <38 17 18 19 20 au i 2 3 £24 © 95 2 26 3 27 & 28 e 45 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION