Joint Rule 26 Report

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 10
21 views
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.

Download

Document Related
Document Description
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 98645 1079 Sunrise Avenue Suite B-315 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone (916) 549-8784 E-Mail bvansickle@surewest.net Attorney for Plaintiff CLAIRE HEADLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLAIRE HEADLEY, Plaintiff, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a corporate entity AND DOES 1 - 20 Defendants. CV 09-03987 DSF (MAN
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728BARRY VAN SICKLE - BAR NO. 986451079 Sunrise AvenueSuite B-315Roseville, CA 95661Telephone (916) 549-8784E-Mail bvansickle@surewest.net Attorney for Plaintiff CLAIRE HEADLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACLAIRE HEADLEY ,Plaintiff,vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL, a corporateentity, RELIGIOUSTECHNOLOGY CENTER, acorporate entity AND DOES 1 - 20 Defendants. CV 09-03987 DSF (MANx)JOINT RULE 26(F) REPORTDATE October 19, 2009TIME 1100 amPLACE Roybal Federal Building,Courtroom 840ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLEJUDGE DALE S. FISCHER  1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS  12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 A.STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges three causes of action. TheComplaint was filed in state court and initially based primarily on California law.The Complaint includes an allegation that defendants coerced and intimidatedPlaintiff into providing labor and services in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1589. Thiscreated federal jurisdiction. Defendants removed the case to this court.The three present causes of action are for restitution of wages under authority of state unfair business practice law, a request for injunctive relief  prohibiting coerced abortions by female workers, and the forced labor claim for violations of the federal human trafficking laws and, in particular, the forcedlabor statute(18 UCS 1589).Plaintiff submits that the forced labor allegations will present questions of fact for a jury. The definition of “serious harm” at 18 USC 1589 (c) (2) is particularly pertinent to Plaintiff’s allegations, although Plaintiff submits that allfour means of illegally obtaining labor set forth in section 1589, numbers 1-4 areused by defendants and were used to illegally obtain labor or services fromPlaintiff.Plaintiff claims that she was an employee of defendants and was thereforeentitled to be paid minimum wage and overtime for her work for defendants. Bothdefendants controlled Plaintiff’s hours, wages, and working conditions. That issufficient to create an employee/employer relationship under California statelabor laws.The Fair Standards Labor Act (FSLA) presents an alternative andadditional requirement that defendant pay employees minimum wage andovertime. The application of the federal law, FSLA, is somewhat morecomplicated than application of state labor law.The FSLA covers persons engaged in commerce and persons who work for an employer engaged in commerce. Coverage of persons who directly work in 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS  12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728commerce or production of goods for commerce is called “individual” coverage.Coverage of workers who work for an enterprise involved in commerce is called“enterprise” coverage. See, e.g. 29 CFR 776.0, 776.3, 776.8, 776.9, 776.11, and776.14.Plaintiff contends that she qualifies for coverage as an employee of theScientology enterprise, and both defendants in particular, under state,“individual” and ‘enterprise” coverage. The law provides three alternativegrounds for finding Plaintiff entitled to the protection of labor laws. Plaintiff alleges that she qualifies under all three grounds; however, she only needs toqualify under one of the three types of available coverage to prove entitlement tominimum wage and overtime. See also,  Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Soc., 417 F.Supp. 449, 457-8, 465, & 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).Plaintiff contends that, under the state and federal labor laws as properlyapplied, the nature of defendant’s business, and the entities included within theScientology enterprise, are only applicable to “enterprise” coverage. However,Plaintiff further contends that the Scientology enterprise, including bothdefendants as members, qualifies as an “enterprise” under the federal labor lawsTherefore, Plaintiff contends that she qualifies for ‘enterprise’ coverage as well asstate and ‘individual” coverage.Plaintiff contends that the case most directly on point is Mitchell v. Pilgrim Holiness Church Corp., 210 F.2d.879 (7 th Cir. 1954). Mitchell  is apparently thesource of references in regulations to the rule that a non-profit entity is subject tothe federal labor laws if it engages in “commerce”. The commerce in Mitchell  was the operation of a printing house and the distribution in interstate commerceof religious materials. This is essentially what CSI and RTC was doing in GoldenEra Productions.Further, Plaintiff contends that the Scientology enterprise, including bothdefendants, have the common business purpose of promoting, selling, and 3 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS  12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728stopping competition form selling, the intellectual property of L. Ron Hubbard.RTC and CSI have claimed in litigation that the trademarks, copyrights and tradesecrets of Scientology have commercial value. Scientology is not a charitableorganization. The Scientology enterprise sells services and training based on thewritings of its founder. It collects license fees and other income for allowingsome organizations to use Hubbard works while preventing other organizationsand persons from using Hubbard’s works. RTC and CSI essentially have amonopoly on certain Hubbard trade marks, copyrights, and purported tradesecrets. It generates income by conducting interstate “commerce” in the sale or licensing of Hubbard works. The Scientology enterprise uses “lower level”materials to promote the sale of more expensive “Advanced Technologies” and“confidential” teachings of Hubbard. Millions of dollars are generated inconnection with this business. Plaintiff contends that there is much more to thestory on the business aspect of scientology, however, just the basics show that itis a commercial enterprise. Accordingly, it must comply with labor laws.Plaintiff anticipates that defendants will claim waiver and religiousdefenses such as a minister exception. Plaintiff signed her first contract as aminor, was under coercion and intimidation, and had labor law rights that couldnot legally be waived. Further, Plaintiff was a clerk and office worker with littleor no contact with the public or public Scientologists. Plaintiff’s work was notministerial in nature or function.Plaintiff was coerced into having two abortions to keep her job and avoid punishment. Plaintiff was threatened with serious harm if she did not obey RTCand CSI. It is RTC and its purported Chairman of the Board—COB-- who putsthe fear into workers such as Plaintiff.The leader of the Scientology enterprise was, and is, David Miscavige.While he holds the title of COB of RTC, he reports to no board or person. Mr.Miscavige directly, and indirectly through RTC, is the real boss of RTC, CSI, and 4 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks