Not so fast: Judge Hammock questions David Miscavige's challenge to step down
When Leah Remini sued the Church of Scientology and its leader David Miscavige at Los Angeles Superior Court last August, she wasn’t happy with the first judge who was selected to preside over it, Judge William Fawhey.
So she submitted what’s called a “peremptory” challenge, meaning that she had one opportunity to remove a judge without having to explain her reasons. The case was then assigned to Judge Barbara Scheper, but she recused herself because her attorney husband had done work for Scientology in the past.
That’s how Judge Randolph Hammock then got assigned to the case, and he has been handling it since then. We saw him in action in January, and we liked what we saw. He took the time to understand the case on a deep level, and even said in court that he’d never worked harder on a tentative ruling in his entire career.
But then, when he made that tentative ruling a final one last month, dismissing some of Leah’s defamation claims but keeping in eight of her nine causes of action, Scientology leader David Miscavige then made his displeasure with the ruling plain when he filed his own peremptory challenge to have Judge Hammock removed. (Scientology attorney William Forman then filed notice that the church planned to appeal the ruling.)
But rather than simply step down, Judge Hammock is pushing back, wondering if it’s too late for Miscavige, especially on his own, to remove the judge so easily.
Yesterday, he filed a rather unusual order, asking both sides to submit arguments about whether, at this point in the lawsuit and after the judge’s major ruling, Miscavige can, unilaterally, remove him.
He proposed both sides wrestle with these questions and get him answers by April 9:
1. The fact that this Court has already ruled upon a special motion to strike (Anti-SLAPP), which may involve a “contested fact determinations relating to the merits of the trial,” does this prevent Defendant Miscavige’s peremptory challenge at this time?
2. Does the fact that Defendant Miscavige is the de facto leader and/or CEO of the corporate defendants prevent him from filing this peremptory challenge, in his individual capacity, at this time?
3. Does the fact that he sought relief, in his individual capacity, by filing a motion to quash for this Court to hear, prevent his current peremptory challenge at this time?
4. Does the fact that subsequent to the filing of his peremptory challenge, he filed a joint stipulation for this Court’s signature and Order, on 3/29/24, requesting an extension for his time to file a responsive pleading, affect his right to exercise a peremptory challenge at this time?
5. Does the subsequent filing of a notice of appeal by the corporate defendants in regard to this Court’s ruling of the special motion to strike have any impact on the pending peremptory challenge, either jurisdictional or otherwise?
Wow! Judge Hammock has spent a lot of time and effort on this lawsuit, and he does not want to be sent packing so easily.
We’re very curious about what both sides say about this. For example, what if Leah’s side has its own issues with Judge Hammock? Will they argue to keep him? We can’t wait to find out.
Bonus items from our tipsters
Want to help?
Please consider joining the Underground Bunker as a paid subscriber. Your $7 a month will go a long way to helping this news project stay independent, and you’ll get access to our special material for subscribers. Or, you can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik. And by request, this is our Venmo link, and for Zelle, please use (tonyo94 AT gmail). E-mail tips to tonyo94@gmail.com.
Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:
Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history
Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea
Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time
Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology
Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain
Here’s the link to today’s post at tonyortega.org
And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.
Paid subscribers get access to two special podcast series…
Up the Bridge: A journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”
Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news
If Miscavige had accepted service rather than playing the cat and mouse game all those months, he probably could have gotten away with a peremptory. I sincerely hope it’s too late for it to fly at this point. In our state you have 15 days from the assignment of a judge to a case to issue a peremptory. I was shocked when Miscavige did this because Hammock has been on the case quite a while. Miscavige was “served” on Valentine’s Day. IMO he’s going to have to be removed for cause if at all unless the law is really different there. Cause is not that he uses common sense or that he issues a ruling they don’t like. If that were the case, a case would continue forever. Which is what Scientology wants,
It is just another time/money wasting ploy from the CO$. I have no idea how the law works in this instance, but for my money (zero dollars) the judge should slap down the $cieno motion.
I can't believe that anyone outside of the CO$ bubble would use Applied Scholastics for anything education related. That scam is sort of falling by the wayside, there aren't enough 'people persons' around to sell that feces to anyone.