Photo: Getty Images
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Having lost their bid to have to the U.S. Supreme Court review a lower court's decision allowing a group of civil case litigants to avoid internal arbitration and proceed to trial in a case against the church and Danny Masterson, lawyers for the Church of Scientology state in new court papers that they are ready for a stay in the case to be lifted so they can begin filing motions.
On Oct. 3, the nation's high court rejected the church's request for review of a decision by a panel of the Second District Court of Appeal in favor of plaintiffs Chrissie Carnell Bixler; her husband, Cedrick Bixler-Zavala; Marie Bobette Riales and two "Jane Does." All allege in their suit filed in August 2019 that they were stalked by Masterson after they reported to police that the "That '70s Show" actor had raped the women.
In their Jan. 19 opinion, the state appellate court justices found that the plaintiffs, who are suing for stalking, invasion of privacy and emotional distress, have a First Amendment right to leave a religious organization and are not bound by the church's arbitration rules since their allegations occurred after they left the faith.
The plaintiffs sought relief from the appellate court after Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Steven J. Kleifield ruled in December 2020 that they were required to arbitrate their claims internally with the church. The judge also put the case on hold pending the resolution of proceedings concerning his arbitration order.
The plaintiffs and Masterson agree discovery should be delayed pending the outcome of the criminal case against the 46-year-old actor, which is now in trial, according to joint papers filed by the parties on Tuesday.
In those same papers, the church lawyers say they want to file responses to the most recent version of the complaint as well as a motion targeting some of the allegations under the state's anti-SLAPP -- Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- law, which is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
The next hearing in the civil suit case is Tuesday.