In December, we reported that Danny Masterson’s victims were proposing to enhance their 2019 lawsuit against him and Scientology in a big way. They proposed to add a new plaintiff (the actress Tricia Vessey, who had testified in Masterson’s first criminal trial to being attacked by him twice in 1996), and to add sexual battery counts against Masterson and racketeering allegations accusing Scientology of being a criminal enterprise.
A hearing is scheduled for March 20 for Judge Upinder Kalra to consider whether to allow that new amended complaint, and now we have Scientology’s response opposing the new changes to the lawsuit.
Yes, you probably aren’t surprised to hear that Scientology is opposing the proposed changes, but we thought you’d like to see the specific arguments that they’re making.
Over four years after filing their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs ask this Court for leave to file an over-the-top, scurrilous, and tabloidesque Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) spanning 104 pages and 645 paragraphs. The motion is set for hearing nearly five months after Defendants Church of Scientology International (“CSI”), Celebrity Centre International (“CC”), and Religious Technology Center (“RTC,” and with CSI and CC, the “Church Defendants”) filed motions under California’s anti-SLAPP laws seeking to strike allegations and causes of action from the FAC. Plaintiffs have known since the outset of this case, before a lengthy stay was originally imposed, that the Church Defendants intended to file anti-SLAPP motions should these cases proceed in this forum. Indeed, in the lead-up to the stay being lifted last year, counsel for the Church Defendants discussed the planned motions and addressed them in a brief. Once the stay was lifted, the Church Defendants moved promptly to file their motions.
Throughout all that time, the Plaintiffs largely remained silent about their intention to amend their complaint. They did not seek leave to amend then or even a schedule to facilitate the Court’s consideration of the proposed SAC in light of the anticipated anti-SLAPP motions. Instead, they waited until December 27, 2023, to file their motion and set it for hearing after the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motions. The proposed SAC seeks to add dozens of new paragraphs, 17 new causes of action, and a new plaintiff. Almost all of the new “facts” alleged in the SAC are old or would have been otherwise known to Plaintiffs years ago. Plaintiffs do not explain their extreme delay in seeking to amend. And an amendment now threatens to wreak havoc on the Court’s ability to resolve this case.
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend should be denied for several reasons.
First, the motion does not comply with the California Rules of Court. Rule 3.1324 requires that the motion identify, by page and line number, the newly added and deleted paragraphs of the proposed amended pleading. The motion does not do that. The Rule also requires that counsel explain in a declaration when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and why leave was not sought earlier. Plaintiffs do not have good answers to those questions, so they ignore them.
Second, even if the Plaintiffs had filed a motion complying with the Rules of Court, the Court cannot grant leave to amend given the procedural posture of this case. Given the Church Defendants’ current anti-SLAPP motions, the Court cannot permit an amendment to the pleadings. And that is true whether the Court has ruled on the anti-SLAPP motions and whether or not an appeal from that anticipated ruling is on file at the time of the hearing on this motion. Plaintiffs have no one else to blame but themselves for that procedural morass.
Third, even if the Court believes it has jurisdiction to permit an amendment to the FAC, the Court should deny it in its discretion. Plaintiffs do not justify their extreme delay in seeking amendment. Permitting an amendment now threatens another extended delay of this case. It cannot be justified, and Plaintiffs do not even try to.
Finally, Plaintiff Riales is barred from amending her complaint to assert claims for invasion of privacy as she seeks to do. Over three years ago, sustaining a demurrer in part, this Court gave Riales leave to amend those claims and she failed to do so. She may not amend now.
The Court should deny the motion.
Scientology’s attorneys go on to point out that Judge Kalra has not yet ruled on the church’s attempt to gut the lawsuit with anti-SLAPP motions and motions to strike. A hearing was held on those matters on February 13, but the Judge has still not ruled on them. It’s premature, Scientology argues, for the court to consider adding allegations to the complaint when a ruling from the court is still pending.
Well, we are curious about what Judge Kalra is going to rule on those anti-SLAPP motions. If you remember, Scientology is trying to derail the case by belittling the lawsuit, and saying that any actual instances of stalking or harassment of Danny Masterson’s victims were not done on behalf of the Church of Scientology.
And even if Judge Kalra were to rule by denying those motions by Scientology, the church is just going to appeal his ruling anyway, so again it’s premature to consider allowing a new amended complaint, they argue.
So there’s a lot for Judge Kalra to consider as that March 20 hearing date nears. What say you, Judge?
Monday morning story may be late
We have something really significant lined up for you tomorrow morning, but circumstances beyond our control may prevent us from posting our story at the usual 7 am Eastern time.
If that’s the case, please bear with us until we can get the story up, and we will be able to explain at that point what caused the delay.
A special treat for our subscribers
Today our subscribers will receive the episode 57 of our special podcast series, “Group Therapy.”
We discuss the week’s revelations with our gang of jokers and degraders.
It’s all the enturbulation you could want!
We’re offering this series as thanks to our subscribers for helping to support the work we do here at the Underground Bunker!
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
A case that’s going to trial in a year and a half would not be severely prejudiced by an amendment now. And, do you really want us to explain that they couldn’t amend a complaint in a case that was on hold while other attorneys were busily delaying another trial where one of the defendants in the instant case, now known as inmate no. BW7253 was being convicted of rape? Deep breath.
Blah, blah, blah. The usual 'you can't touch this' crap from the $cieno lawyers. I applaud the inclusion of RICO charges and I bet the plaintiffs have enough evidence to tie the harassment to the CO$. I don't know when they are going to unveil the smoking gun, but I am waiting for it with baited breath. Judge Kalra is going to find his in basket full of more $cieno excrement and as the old adage goes, 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, confound them with bovine excrement'.