It should not surprise you to hear that Scientology's attorneys are not happy again. But this time, they're actually unhappy with a judge.
Last week, Judge Upinder Kalra lifted the stay on the Bixler v. Scientology lawsuit, which had been on hold while Danny Masterson’s criminal trials were going on. (That’s the lawsuit that was filed in 2019 by Masterson’s victims against Danny and the church, accusing them of a campaign of harassment.)
Now that Masterson has been sentenced, Judge Kalra lifted the stay on the lawsuit over the objection of Scientology's lawyers.
Scientology’s attorneys — William Forman for the church, Robert Mangels for RTC, as well as Andrew Brettler for Masterson — argued that the lawsuit should stay on ice for now, but Judge Kalra disagreed.
And now they've filed a motion carping that the good judge, in his Minute Order, made it sound like all sides agreed to lift the stay, and they want him to correct the record.
“The Defendants respectfully request that this objection be sustained, and the Court correct the Minute Order to reflect that the lifting of the stay was over the objections of the Defendants,” they write.
Well, whatever.
The reason we’re bringing it up is not so much for what the Scientology attorneys are complaining about, but that in order to bolster their point, they attached a transcript of last week’s hearing.
Hey, that’s handy. We had described the hearing to you based on our correspondent’s notes, but we thought you might like to see exactly how things actually went down and to see Judge Kalra’s words for yourself. It’s not every day that we have a record of what was said in court, so we’re thankful that Scientology’s suits threw this fit.
Let us know what you think of Judge Kalra and how he handled this brief courtroom encounter.
Judge Upinder Kalra: Chrissie Bixler, et al, versus Church of Scientology... We have counsel in court. We have lots of counsel on CourtConnect. We have a court reporter on CourtConnect. Please speak clearly, slowly, and loudly. And please identify yourself when speaking. We are going to start with counsel in court. Counsel, appearance?
Andrew Brettler: Good morning, your honor. Andrew Brettler for defendant Masterson.
Judge Kalra: OK. And who do we have here for the plaintiff, Jane Doe?
Brad Edwards: Brad Edwards for Jane Doe 1.
Judge Kalra: That's one plaintiff. And Plaintiff Bixler?
Alison Anderson: We represent the remaining plaintiffs. Alison Anderson and John Kucera on the line.
Judge Kalra: OK. And is there a Simon Leen?
Anderson: He's not here today. Thank you.
Judge Kalra: OK. And now, defendant Church of Scientology. Do we have counsel on CourtConnect?
William Forman: Yes, William Forman and Margaret Dayton for defendant Church of Scientology International, and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre, International.
Judge Kalra: OK, all right.
Robert Mangels: Yes, your honor. Robert Mangels and Matthew Hinks.
Judge Kalra: OK. I hope I got everyone. I know there's some observers, as well. Did I get all the appearances of counsel? Today's the date, there was, we put this over whether or not to lift the stay. I did read the status conference, joint status conference, filed on September 25. There was an objection to take judicial notice. This is just a status conference. I'm not taking judicial notice or not judicial notice of anything at this point. This is just to get the respective positions on whether or not the court should lift the stay.
I understand that defendant Masterson has been sentenced. I'm also understanding that he still enjoys the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because there's an appellate process. So while that Fifth Amendment is not waived, this case has been on abeyance for a significant period of time. It was filed on August 22, 2019. I know the court, and including prior bench officials, stayed the action to allow the criminal proceeding to proceed.
There was a first trial. It was a mistrial. There was a second trial and conviction. And although defendant Masterson still enjoys the Fifth Amendment privilege, it seems to me on balance, at this point we can proceed. And whether Masterson invokes the Fifth in regards to any discovery request, we'd take that up individually. Those are the challenges plaintiffs will face.
And plaintiff is asking that we proceed. Be careful what you wish for, plaintiff. If I lift the stay that five-year clock will start again. And if you are being challenged in getting discovery because defendant Masterson will continue to enjoy the Fifth Amendment privilege until the appellate process works its way out — and I would venture to guess, 60 days to file a notice of appeal. It will take a significant period of time for the record on appeal to be prepared.
And thereafter, after the record is prepared, the appellate court, depending on the division — they each have different paces — but I'm be ambitious, two and a half to three years before an appellate opinion issues. I don't know what appellate issues are going to be raised. I'm not going to comment on that.
But after an appellate opinion is issued, there would be a petition for re-hearing. Following a petition for re-hearing, there will be a petition for review. So three years, easy.
And if you want me to lift the stay, and you come back later and say we need additional time, time should be tolled because we couldn't get discovery, you're making this request with eyes wide open. So you'd be hard-pressed to make that argument with this knowledge.
Plaintiff, are you sure you want me to lift the stay? Who would like to be heard?
Edwards: On behalf of Jane Doe 1, yes, we'd like the stay lifted.
Judge Kalra: OK. Remaining plaintiffs?
Anderson: We agree as well, your honor.
Judge Kalra: You're doing it with eyes wide open, counsel Edwards?
Edwards: Yes, your honor. We understand that's the risk and the problems going forward.
Judge Kalra: Counsel Anderson?
Anderson: Same. Yes, we understand.
Judge Kalra: So defense, I understand you might — defense, who would like to be heard for Masterson?
Brettler: Your honor, for Masterson, I set forth our position in the status conference report. As the court recognizes, Mr. Masterson still is entitled to the Fifth Amendment protection, not only because of the appeal, but the third mistried count is still viable, and could be retried. The stay should remain in place with respect to Mr. Masterson through the time the appeal is fully resolved, and the government decides to dismiss that third count with prejudice.
Judge Kalra: And for the Church of Scientology, who would like to be heard?
Forman: Your honor, this is Bill Forman for the Church of Scientology International. I think the most important factor that needs to be addressed here is, we were just informed yesterday by plaintiffs' counsel that they intend to file an amended complaint in this matter.
We had asked them at the meet-and-confer last week what their intentions were with that, and they said, we'll get back to you. They told us yesterday at 4:30. I responded immediately, what are the grounds for the amendment, the new allegations, what are the new causes of action? I did not even receive an acknowledgement of my email. We cannot be put in a position of propounding or responding to discovery if there's going to be an amendment.
So I would suggest the stay continue while they get us their proposed amendment. We see if we stipulate to the filing of it, or whether they need to file a motion for leave to file the amendment because we have no idea what we're facing now. We don't understand why they hid the ball for so long. And we're so, and could not even tell us what the grounds for amendment are.
Judge Kalra: The only thing before me is the current pleadings. Whether or not they intend to amendment, whether they voice their interest in amending matters not to the court. There's a pleading before the court. So the argument that you do not know how to respond to the discovery does not go very far with this court. There's a current pleading. That's the only pleading. Whether they intend to do it by stipulation or whether the court will grant leave, until that happens, there's a current pleading. You know what the issues are, right, today. And that really has little to do with the stay or not. But I appreciate your position. Lastly, the Religious Technology Center?
Mangels: Yes, your honor. Robert Mangels. I join with Mr. Forman. This law firm's been involved, new law firm for six to eight months. They've never mentioned an amended complaint until last week when we finally pried it out of them that they were going to file an amended complaint.
We do not know who the defendants will be. We do not know what the causes of action will be, what they will be. It's, essentially, unfair to ask us to proceed without a viable complaint on file. If they wait months to file an amended complaint, we'll need, we'll have to start over again with discovery.
The court should consider at least staying this until they file their amended complaint. I assume they can do it tomorrow. So what's, I don't understand what the problem with them giving us the amended complaint is, frankly.
Judge Kalra: Well, I don't understand how you possibly not know you don't have a pleading. There's a pleading before me. People always say maybe I'm going to do this or that. You can respond to discovery. With that, plaintiff wants the case to go forward. I understand. They're not asking for limitations on the stay. I understand each of your respective positions, and I appreciate it.
I'm lifting the stay. I do not know how much time is left, so on the next court date file a joint report on what you believe is the time left regarding the, you subtract the time tolled from the time this case has been active. How much time we have left, I have no idea. I leave it to the parties. I will say this is 44-page of filings, each page has basically ten electronic filings. We're talking about 400-plus filings. I leave it to the parties to tell me where we are.
If you can't make an agreement, I'll enter an order. And this is for a case that's been stayed for a significant period of time.
Now, with that being said, my trial dates are a year out. I need to know up front if that's a little ambitious. If so, I'll just kick it out further, but I have trial dates a year out. Plaintiff Edwards?
Edwards: Yes, your honor. I think without getting any discovery, it's hard to know. But it might be slightly ambitious from my point of view.
Judge Kalra: OK. So I'm going to kick it out two years. So that will give you plenty of time for any of the other issues to be worked out. September 22, 2025, 10 am. Final status conference, September 10, 2025 at 9:30 am. And post-mediation status conference May 16, 2025, at 8:30 am. First off, does that work for your calendar?
Edwards: Yes, your honor.
Judge Kalra: Does that work, counsel Anderson?
Anderson: Your honor, at the risk of rocking the boat when we've got a date, I might request a year and a half as opposed to two years, but if it's two years, it's two years.
Judge Kalra: Right now, it's two years. You're going to give me, we're going to set a status date in about 90 days. I want to make sure I'm not outside the five-year period. We're going to see each other sooner than that.
Anderson: I'm certain of it.
Judge Kalra: OK. Counsel for Masterson, does that work for you?
Brettler: Yes.
Judge Kalra: And Church of Scientology?
Forman: Yes, your honor.
Judge Kalra: Work for the Religious Technology Center?
Mangels: Yes.
Judge Kalra: OK. The parties are ordered to familiarize themselves with the courtroom information as part of the case management order. You're free to file motions to compel, however the court does conduct informal discovery conferences prior to hearing the motion so you can save yourself resources and schedule it first.
If I suspect there's a lot of discovery disputes, as I told the last party, you're free to set up a referee by stipulation. If not, if there's no stipulation, the court will hold whoever the moving party is to the standard under the law, which is an onerous standard.
In addition, the parties are ordered to comply with local rule 3.25. Meet and confer at least five days before the final status conference and file joint electronic documents.
We will set further status. I expect, additionally, it'll be 90 days out. Thereafter, we may have to do it sooner. January 10, 2024 at 9 am. Does that work for counsel Edwards?
Edwards: Yes, your honor.
Judge Kalra: Counsel Anderson?
Anderson: Yes, your honor.
Judge Kalra: Counsel for Masterson?
Brettler: Yes, your honor.
Judge Kalra: Counsel for Church of Scientology?
Forman: Yes, your honor.
Judge Kalra: Counsel for Religious Technology?
Mangels: Yes.
Judge Kalra: OK. So plaintiff, unless you want to give notice, I'm going to ask that parties waive notice. Plaintiff Doe 1, waive notice?
Edwards: Yes, your honor, waive notice.
Judge Kalra: Counsel Anderson?
Anderson: Yes, we waive. Thank you.
Judge Kalra: Masterson?
Brettler: Notice waived.
Judge Kalra: Church of Scientology?
Forman: Notice waived.
Judge Kalra: Religious Technology Center?
Mangels: Yes, your honor.
Judge Kalra: OK. Delightful. Thank you for your patience and thank you for waiting. (Adjourned.)
Want to help?
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).
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 every week…
Up the Bridge: A weekly journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”
Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news
From reading the transcript it does appear that C of S lawyers and Masterson’s lawyer were in agreement with lifting the stay. I’m sure Mini-Miscavige was not happy and told the lawyers “DO SOMETHING! You CS’s.”
In all my years being in Scientology there have never been as many lawsuits against the church. Nor has there been even close to this much negative press regarding Scientology. I wonder what OSA staff member is keeping tabs on all of Scientology’s press. It used to be number of inch’s favorable press. Now it’s number of yards of negative press which is the way it’s suppose to be.
"we’re thankful that Scientology’s suits threw this fit." Sounds like the lawyers for RTC and the other $cieno actor stepped on their male members again. Wow, 2 years for discovery and to prepare for a court date. And the Judge called one year too 'ambitious'? Given the usual delay tactic by the Clams, two years may be 'ambitious'. Judge Kalra runs a good courtroom.
With the stay lifted, and a new addition to the Plaintiffs cause for action, I expect more courtroom antics by the Jan 2024 session. Butthurt much RTC and CC?