Customize

Laura Decrescenzo's Lawsuit

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by blownforgood, Apr 3, 2009.

  1. Sponge Member

    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In CACO 20110722026.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

    DeCRESCENZO v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

    LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO, Plaintiff and Appellant,
    v.
    CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL et al., Defendants and Respondents.

    No. B224409.

    Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three.

    Filed July 22, 2011.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

    THE COURT:

    The opinion filed in this cause on June 24, 2011, is hereby modified as follows:

    1. On page 5, line 16, insert the words "and misrepresentation to induce relocation for employment" after "violations" so the phrase reads:

    (6) wage and hour violations and misrepresentation to induce relocation for employment;

    2. On page 6, the first sentence of the first full paragraph is modified to read as follows:

    Religious Technology Center (RTC) then filed its demurrer to the second amended complaint based on the same grounds asserted by Scientology.

    3. On page 6, insert the following after the first sentence of the first full paragraph:

    RTC also argued that the allegation that plaintiff "also worked for Defendant, RTC" contradicted prior allegations that she "was not employed by" RTC and therefore was a sham.

    4. On page 17, insert the following after the first paragraph:

    5. The Judgment in Favor of RTC Cannot Be Affirmed Based on a Purported Sham Allegation

    RTC argued in support of its demurrer that the allegation in the second amended complaint that plaintiff "also worked for Defendant, RTC" contradicted allegations in her prior complaints that she "was not employed by" RTC. RTC argued that the new allegation was a sham, that plaintiff was bound by her prior allegations, and that the fact that she was not employed by RTC precluded each count alleged in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff argued in opposition that her current allegation that she "also worked for" RTC differed from her current allegation that she "was employed by" Scientology, and that she did not allege an employment relationship with RTC. She also argued that her current allegation that RTC "was responsible for and directly oversaw a number of the policies and conditions of Plaintiff's employment" explained RTC's role, and that there was no inconsistency with her prior allegations.

    An amended complaint that omits harmful factual allegations from a previous complaint, whether verified or unverified, or alleges facts contradicting those prior allegations, without an adequate explanation for the discrepancy is regarded as a sham pleading. A court ruling on a demurrer may take judicial notice of facts alleged in a prior complaint revealing a defect in an amended complaint, and may disregard any inconsistent allegations in the amended complaint. (State ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 412; see Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 425-426.)

    We conclude that the allegation that plaintiff "also worked for" RTC does not contradict the prior allegation that she "was not employed by" RTC. These allegations are not contradictory because an employee of one company can provide services to another company without becoming an employee of the second company. (Marsh v. Tilley Steel Co. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 486, 492-493.) As we read the complaint, plaintiff alleges that she provided for services to RTC and that RTC oversaw some of the policies and conditions of her employment, and does not allege that RTC was her employer. Accordingly, we conclude that the allegation that plaintiff "also worked for" RTC is not a sham and that the sustaining of the demurrer cannot be affirmed on this basis.

    The petitions for rehearing filed by Church of Scientology International and Religious Technology Center are denied.

    There is no change in the judgment.

    --------

    Of course, the dox are also available on the official California Courts website
    (unpublished opinions are usually only available for a limited time but the media link from leagle.com at the top of this post should always be good)
    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-nonpub.htm
    Jul 22 2011 B224409M DeCrescenzo v. Church of Scientology CA2/3 filed 7/22/11
    PDF: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B224409M.PDF
    DOC: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B224409M.DOC

    judgegavelnou.jpg
    • Like Like x 8
  2. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Cult still spanked; looks to me like they just added a couple extra swats.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    denied

    tee hee
  4. TinyDancer Member

    It's good. Case is on track.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. tikk Member

    This is a good example of what a legal war chest can buy you. Their argument that the second amended complaint was a sham pleading is pretty easily reconciled and they surely knew how thin this was. But to the extent it delayed going back to the district court and cost Laura's attorneys more time and expense, it's an option they'd choose every time, even if they knew the outcome in advance.
    • Like Like x 7
  6. Anonymous Member

    Hell yeah!!!!!!!!!
    Fuck Scientology lawyers and their appeals!!
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Interrobanger Member

    Any guess on what proportion of Scientology's legal work on such a case is performed by external law firms billing them by the hour?
  8. Anonymous Member

    I don't think they are feeling the pinch, even if it's a high proportion. C'mon...Scientology has an army of slaves and tons of money. They keep on buying real-estate, i.e. they are still sitting on billions.
  9. Interrobanger Member

    Okay, but my question was not "can they afford it."
  10. Sponge Member

    I don't have the right dox to hand right now but if it is the same hired lawfirm and lawyers as the Headley's case then I'd imagine they are largely running the show due to their expertise in employment law and not simply hired to make Moxon's paperwork load lighter.
    http://www.proskauer.com/about/
    http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/anthony-oncidi/
    http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/harold-brody/

    What I'd like to know is whether this clarification in the latest opinion, i.e. effectively the refusal to allow a disassociation of RTC, whether it means there's a greater chance that David Miscavige will be deposed without too much argument (and all the self-incriminating homo-novis lulz that may come with that).
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Anonymous Member

    ^^^ LOL
    I assumed that's where you were going with that, i.e. how much money they need to waste on external lawyers. But I may have jumped the gun. So my answer is - I do not know.
  12. tikk Member

    The latest ruling doesn't affect or touch on whether DM can/will be deposed, and isn't "effectively a refusal to allow a disassociation of RTC"--it's a refusal to dismiss the case based on defendant's theory that plaintiff's statement that she worked for RTC amounted to her alleging that she was an employee of RTC and was thus a sham pleading. Scientology as we know is comprised of a series of intersecting corporate entities so the occasion can and does often arise that one can easily be said to have worked for one entity while being employed by another.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Anonymous Member

    But, tikk, I'm someone who after a 1/2 Century of observing scientology manipulating the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Legal system, successfully, I have to admit that scientology is a successful manipulator of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Legal System.

    It's a god damn fact. Everyone who knows about scientology, in the US, in the entire world, knows it.
    Scientology is probably the worst harbinger of human rights, other than North Korea. prove me wrong.
  14. Sponge Member

    Thanks tikk. It was meant to be put as more of a question than as an assertion, sorry about that. Thanks for answering and clarifying. Much appreciated.

    Still, even though it is unrelated to the opinion in the ruling, I'm looking forward to the idea of Miscavige being deposed. We haven't had any really good legal comedy gold since Miscavige forgot where he lived or the inb4 anal raep TR 1.1 club episode.
  15. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Your 1/2 Century didn't teach you what "harbinger" means?
    • Like Like x 4
  16. Anonymous Member

    smirk
  17. xenubarb Member

    You and me should get together and trade words someday. ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Anonymous Member

    moon.gif_thumb.jpg bat.png
  19. Xenu Is Lord Member

    • Like Like x 5
  20. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Some casual lex?
    • Like Like x 7
  21. TinyDancer Member

    Comment of the year.

    Edit: Spam reported.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Albion Member

    JohnnyRUClear said:
    Some casual lex?

    Good grief.

    Just before your screens steam over, let me get this thread back on track.

    Late again, but write-up posted at Infinite Complacency: look forward to
    marks out of ten from Tikk.

    Made the mistake of trying to do an update of all the cases in one piece.Finally
    settled for starting with the DeCrescenzo case and will move on to the Headleys
    asap.

    Jonny Jacobsen

    P.S. So does Scrabble count as safe lex?
    • Like Like x 7
  23. JohnnyRUClear Member

    ^^^^ I suppose, as long as you keep your dict in the wordionary.
    • Like Like x 5
  24. AnonLover Member

    Nice job, your always worth waiting on MrJ! :)

    Protip: must where latex glove for proper scrabble-style safe lex. Twister-style safe lex is much moar fun tho, no funky gloves required.... just a body condom ;)
  25. subgenius Member

    Or some cunning linguistics.
    • Like Like x 4
  26. AnonLover Member

    • Like Like x 3
  27. tikk Member

    • Like Like x 2
  28. AnonLover Member

    "one doghouse" seems like such an understatement.
    • Like Like x 2
  29. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  30. tippytoe Member

    Thanks for the doghouse explanation. I was totally confused!
  31. Anonymous Member

    The do see their staff as employees !
    From the walls of the Founding Church in Washington DC
    [IMG]
  32. Anonymous Member

    Well paid my ASS!
    • Like Like x 1
  33. lostatsea Member

    They seriously sell the idea when recruiting people for staff that someday, the org will be doing so well that they will all get paid well enough so that they (the staff members) will be able to make a good living solely working for Scientology. They used this when trying to recruit my ex-spouse for staff (they were pretty relentless in trying to do so for a while). F'ing LOL.
  34. PodPeople Member

    Could be correct. Miscavige, after all, is very well paid. Everyone else IS considered property, silly.
  35. xenubarb Member

    A man told us a story during a raid. Unemployed, he called the org about their help wanted sign. They told him it was a salaried position. He spent his last money getting his suit pressed and drycleaned for the interview.

    Where they denied it was a salaried position, explained how it was commission only, and made him realize he'd spent his last dollars for no good reason.
  36. Anonymous Member

  37. Anonymous Member

    Who knew there was a statute of limitations on these things at the federal level?

    Wishing you well dt2000. Wishing you well.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. DeathHamster Member

  39. RolandRB Member

    They used this on me as well when trying to recruit me onto staff.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins