Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 19STCV29458, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 19STCV29458    Hearing Date: May 29, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   May 29, 2024                                     

CASE NAME:           Chrissie Carnell Bixler, et al. v. Church of Scientology International, et al.

CASE NO.:                19STCV29458

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiffs Chrissie Carnell Bixler, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Church of Scientology International, Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International, and Religious Technology Center; Joinder by Defendant Daniel Masterson

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      Order granting Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is STAYED pending appeal.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This action was commenced on August 22, 2019. Plaintiffs Chrissie Carnell Bixler (“Bixler”), Cedric Bixler-Zavala (“Bixler-Zavala”), Jane Doe #1, Marie Bobette¿Riales¿(“Riales”), and Jane Doe #2 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on February 28, 2020,, against Defendants Church of Scientology International¿(“CSI”)¿and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International (¿“CCI”), Defendant Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), Defendant Daniel Masterson (“Masterson”), Defendant David Miscavige, and DOES 1-25 (collectively, “Defendants”).¿ 

The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Stalking in violation of Civil Code section¿1708.7; (2) Physical invasion of privacy in violation of Civil Code section 1708.8; (3) Constructive invasion of privacy in violation of Civil Code section 1708.8; (4) Intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) Loss of consortium.¿The FAC alleges five causes of action for: (1) Stalking in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.7; (2) Physical Invasion of Privacy in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8; (3) Constructive Invasion of Privacy in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (5) Loss of Consortium. 

On December 30, 2020, this Court issued a ruling compelling arbitration. Plaintiffs appealed. 

On May 12, 2022, the Court of Appeal issued a Remittitur. 

On December 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. On March 7, 2024, Defendants CSI, CCI, and RTC (the “Church Defendants”) filed an opposition. On the same day, Defendant Masterson filed a Joinder to the opposition. On March 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

On March 25, 2024, the Court entered an order denying Defendants’ special motion to strike the FAC.

On May 22, 2024, Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court’s March 25, 2024 Order. s

LEGAL STANDARD:

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

“A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

“A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

In Hauser v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1933) 133 Cal.App. 222, the court held “[a]lthough permission to amend pleadings is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, courts should be liberal in the allowance of amendments….” (Hauser v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1933) 133 Cal.App. 222, 228.)

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs move for an order granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on the grounds that (1) furtherance of justice requires amendment and (2) the proposed SAC will not prejudice Defendants in this action. Plaintiffs assert the proposed SAC seeks to add a plaintiff, Tricia Vessey and to include new causes of action based on intervening changes in law, newly discovered facts, and facts not in existence at the time of the FAC.

Defendants oppose the instant motion on the grounds that (1) the motion and supporting declaration fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324; (2) the Court cannot permit amendment of the FAC pending the status of the Defendants anti-SLAPP motions and joinder; (3) Plaintiffs fail to justify the extreme delay in seeking amendment; and (4) Plaintiff Riales is barred from asserting claims of invasion of privacy.

The Court finds that leave to file the proposed SAC in this matter cannot be granted at this time.

Stay of the Proceedings

In Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, the court held “[a]n implied stay in the proceedings where the plaintiff files an amended complaint prior to the defendant's appeal of the denial of a SLAPP motion to strike is necessary so that a plaintiff cannot deprive a defendant of the right to the appellate review granted by the Legislature so that the appellate court can determine if the defendant had made a prima facie showing.” (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613; see also Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 464.)

“Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendants filed a timely appeal to the Court’s ruling on the anti-SLAPP motions, so mandatory stay of the proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a) is required. Moreover, an implied stay of the proceedings would be necessary pursuant to California case law.

Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint cannot be rule upon at this time.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is STAYED pending appeal.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             May, 29, 2024             __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court