Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/20/2019 10:53 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk

1 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP

ROBERT E. MANGELS (Bar No. 48291)
2 rmangels@jmbm.com
MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750)
3 mhinks@jmbm.com
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
Telephone: (310) 203-8080
5 Facsimile: (310) 203-0567

6 Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

10

11 CHRISSIE CARNEL BIXLER; CEDRIC CASE NO. 19STCV29458

BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE
12 BOBETTE RIALES; and JANE DOE #2, [Assigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield,
Dept. 57]
13 Plaintiffs,
SPECIAL APPEARANCE
14 v.
SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT
15 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S
INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND
16 TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF
SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE SUMMONS AND FOR SANCTIONS
17 INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE; UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §
DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1-25, 128.5; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
18 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
Defendants.
19 NOTICE OF JOINDER AND JOINDER IN
MOTIONS OF SPECIALLY-APPEARING
20 DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND
21 CELEBRITY CENTRE
INTERNATIONAL FOR SANCTIONS
22
Date: February 5, 2020
23 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 57
24 Reservation ID: 241920457728
25

26

27

28

67512977v1 1
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 5, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
3 counsel shall be heard, in Department 57 of the Superior Court for the State of California for the

4 County of Los Angeles, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, specially-

5 appearing Defendant Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) will specially appear and move the

6 Court for an order quashing the purported service of the summons and complaint upon it.1

7 The motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10 on the grounds that the

8 Court lacks jurisdiction over RTC in that RTC was never properly served with the summons and

9 complaint in this matter.

10 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT RTC will and hereby does join in the
11 motions of Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and Celebrity Centre International (“CC”)

12 to impose sanctions against Plaintiffs and their attorneys by striking the appearance of the out-of-

13 state attorneys and refusing to admit them pro hac vice, and by ordering that they pay $1,500 to the

14 Court under California Code of Civil Procedure § 177.5 for violations of court orders.

15 This motion and joinder is made upon this notice, the attached memorandum of points and

16 authorities, the declarations of Warren McShane, Matthew D. Hinks, Lynn Farny, William H.

17 Forman and Lewis Miranda, all pleadings and documents on file in this action, such further papers

18 and authorities as may be filed in support hereof, and oral argument as may be presented at the
19 hearing on the motion.

20 DATED: November 20, 2019 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS
21 MATTHEW D. HINKS
22

23
By:
24 MATTHEW D. HINKS
Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant
25
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
26

27
1
28 RTC’s original motion was filed on November 18, 2019, but inadvertently omitted Exhibit A.
This amended motion makes no changes other than including the cited exhibit.
67512977v1 2
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) specially appears and brings this motion to quash the

3 purported service upon RTC of the summons and complaint filed in this action. As with the alleged

4 service on co-defendants Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and Celebrity Centre

5 International (“CC”), Plaintiffs failed to properly serve the summons and complaint upon RTC in

6 compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure. The many ways in which Plaintiffs failed to comply

7 with the service statutes are described below. But making matters worse, after failing to comply

8 with the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs filed a false proof of service and declaration of mailing

9 as part and parcel of a group of proofs of service upon all named defendants in this matter that are

10 unquestionably fraudulent. Plaintiffs’ fraud occurs within the context of a pattern of abuses and

11 failures to comply with Court orders and the California Rules of Court that are described in the

12 motions of CC and CSI in which RTC joins and agrees.

13 For the all of the reasons set forth below and in the CSI and CC motions, RTC submits that

14 the Court should grant this motion and joinder, quash the defective service of the summons and

15 complaint upon RTC, impose monetary sanctions upon Plaintiffs, and bar Plaintiffs’ improperly-

16 appearing out-of-state lawyers from further participating in these proceedings.

17 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

18 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on August 22, 2019. [Declaration of Matthew D. Hinks (“Hinks
19 Decl.”) ¶ 2.] Plaintiffs allege in their complaint causes of action for alleged stalking, invasion of

20 privacy infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. [Id.] However, Plaintiffs’ complaint

21 makes no specific allegations of wrongdoing against RTC. [Id.]

22 On October 10, 2019, Plaintiffs purported to serve RTC by dropping off a copy of the

23 summons and complaint with Lewis Miranda, the receptionist at the headquarters of defendant

24 Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles. [Hinks

25 Decl., Exh. A.] However, RTC’s office address is not 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, it is 1710 Ivar

26 Avenue. [Declaration of Warren McShane (“McShane Decl.”) ¶ 3.] RTC’s office address is listed

27 with the California Secretary State and can be identified by a simple search on the Secretary of

28 State’s website. [Id.] Plaintiffs are well aware of RTC’s office address since it is identified in their

67512977v1 3
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 own complaint. [Complaint, ¶ 8.] The Secretary of State’s website also identifies RTC’s agent for

2 service of process who maintains an office in Woodland Hills. [McShane Decl., ¶ 3.]

3 Upon appearing at CSI’s offices, the process server, Robert Hall, stated that he had papers

4 to deliver to the “Church of Scientology International.” [Declaration of Lewis Miranda, ¶ 2.] The

5 process server never mentioned delivering anything for RTC. [Id.] Mr. Miranda informed the

6 process server that he was not authorized to receive any legal documents. [Id.] Mr. Miranda further

7 directed the process server to serve CSI’s registered agent for service of process, whose name and

8 address could be found by searching online. [Id.] Since the process server did not state he was

9 purporting to serve RTC, Mr. Miranda did not discuss RTC with him. [Id.] Despite Mr. Miranda’s

10 statements, the process server left the papers with him. [Id., ¶¶ 2-3; Hinks Decl., Exh. A.]

11 The proof of service of RTC claims that RTC was served by substitute service. [Hinks Decl.,

12 Exh. A.] The proof further claims that on October 10, 2019, Robert Hall left the papers with “‘John

13 Doe’ Front Desk Agent,” and “I [Robert Hall] thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid)

14 copies of the documents to the person to be served at the place where copies were left” stating “a

15 declaration of mailing is attached.” [Id., ¶ 5b(4).] But the attached declaration of mailing shows

16 that Mr. Hall’s statement in the proof of service was false. In particular, the declaration of mailing

17 states that on October 11, 2019, a person named Jeffrey Pink (not Robert Hall, as Mr. Hall swore)

18 mailed the “Summons; Complaint; Civil Case Sheet; Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum And
19 Statement of Location, Notice of Jury Fee Deposit, Notice of Case Management Conference” from

20 Burlingame, California to “David Miscavige / Director, 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles,

21 CA 90028.” [Id. (Declarations of Mailing ¶ 3).] The name of RTC is handwritten below the name

22 of the addressee. [Id.]

23 As of this date, more than a month has passed since the purported October 11 mailing date

24 and RTC still has not received the copies of the papers that were allegedly mailed. [McShane Decl.

25 ¶¶ 5-6.] To test the contention of mailing in the proof of service and declaration of mailing,

26 defendant CSI hired its own agent to mail a package from Burlingame to CSI’s office in Hollywood

27 to see how long the journey by mail took. [Declaration of Lynn Farny, ¶ 6.] The package arrived

28 in just 4 days. [Id.] Thus, it appears that Mr. Pink’s declaration of mailing, like Mr. Hall’s proof of

67512977v1 4
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 service, is false.

2 III. ARGUMENT
3 A. The Court Should Quash the Purported Service of Summons Upon RTC Given
4 the Failure to Comply with the Code of Civil Procedure
5 1. Plaintiffs Bear the Burden of Proving Proper Service; No Jurisdiction

6 Exists Over RTC Unless It Was Properly Served

7 Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10 provides that, “[a] defendant, on or before the last day of

8 his or her time to plead … may serve and file a notice of motion … [t]o quash service of summons

9 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” Thus, a defendant may move for

10 an order quashing service of summons when the service is ineffective. See id.; Fireman's Fund Ins.

11 Co. v. Sparks Const., Inc., 114 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1145 (2004) .

12 Service of summons must be lawfully effectuated to confer jurisdiction over a defendant.

13 See Marriage of Fitzgerald and King, 39 Cal. App. 4th 1419, 1426 (1995). A court lacks jurisdiction

14 over a defendant unless the defendant has been served with summons properly according to the

15 Code of Civil Procedure. See Rutenberg v. Rutenberg, 53 Cal. App. 4th 801, 808 (1997) (“[u]ntil

16 statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant). This is true even

17 if the defendant has actual notice of the lawsuit; the defendant must still be served in compliance

18 with statutory requirements. See Renoir v. Redstar Corp., 123 Cal. App. 4th 1145, 1152 (2004).
19 (“Knowledge by a defendant of a plaintiff's action does not satisfy the requirement of adequate

20 service of a summons and complaint.”). In California, “the original service of process, which

21 confers jurisdiction, must conform to statutory requirements or all that follows is void.” Honda

22 Motor Co. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1043, 1048, (1992).

23 “When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper

24 service of process, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove . . . the facts requisite to an effective

25 service.” Summers v. McClanahan, 140 Cal. App. 4th 403, 413 (2006) (internal quotation marks

26 omitted); Lebel v. Mai, 210 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1163 (2012). Therefore, it is Plaintiffs’ obligation

27 here to offer proof that they made proper service on RTC according to the California Code of Civil

28 Procedure.

67512977v1 5
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 2. Plaintiffs Failed to Properly Serve RTC According to the Procedures of the

2 Code of Civil Procedure

3 The Code of Civil Procedure provides a number of ways to serve process on a corporation

4 in this state such as RTC. “The most common method is by service on the corporation’s designated

5 agent for service of process.” Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1434, 1437

6 (2014) (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.10(a)). “Otherwise, a corporation may be served by

7 personally delivering a summons and complaint to those corporate officers, managers and

8 employees identified in section 416.10, subdivision (b)2, or by delivering process to someone in

9 charge of the office of one of the individuals identified in section 416.10, subdivision (b) and then

10 mailing the individual a copy of the summons and complaint.” Id. at 1437-38 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc.

11 Code § 415.20).

12 Here, although RTC has a designated local agent for service of process, Plaintiffs purported

13 to serve the summons and complaint by substitute service under Code of Civil Procedure §

14 415.20(a). The proof of service they filed claimed that the summons and complaint were delivered

15 to the office address of CSI then mailed to the same CSI address. The service upon RTC was

16 defective for several reasons.

17 As an initial matter, Plaintiffs failed to serve the summons and complaint upon an authorized

18 individual. The papers were directed to “David Miscavige / Director.” However, a “Director” is
19 not one of the enumerated persons upon whom service may be made under Code of Civil Procedure

20 § 416.10(b). The individuals listed in section 416.10(b) include various “corporate officers or agents

21 authorized to accept service on behalf of the corporation.” Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co., 24 Cal.

22 App. 4th 1426, 1439 (1994); see also Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2011) (service

23 not effective where service not made upon “an officer or someone authorized to accept service for

24 the corporation”). However, Mr. Miscavige is not an officer of RTC and has not been designated

25 by RTC as an authorized agent for service of process. [McShane Decl., ¶ 7.] This is a fatal defect.

26
2
27 Those individuals are: “the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a
vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or
28 chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive
service of process.”
67512977v1 6
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 Gen. Motors Corp. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App. 3d 81, 87 (1971) (“designating the wrong person

2 on the summons is as critical a defect as no designation at all”).

3 Moreover, Plaintiffs failed to deliver the complaint and summons to a correct service

4 address. The proofs of service Plaintiffs filed claim that they left the summons and complaint with

5 a receptionist at the building located at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard. [Hinks Decl., Exh. A.]

6 However, RTC’s office address is 1710 Ivar Avenue, not 6331 Hollywood Boulevard. [McShane

7 Decl., ¶ 3.] In addition, when the process server arrived at CSI’s building, he announced that he

8 had papers to serve on CSI and made no mention of RTC, in violation of the requirement of Code

9 of Civil Procedure § 415.20(a) that the person with whom papers are left on behalf of a corporation

10 “shall be informed of the contents thereof.”

11 Further, under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20, service must be made by “delivering

12 process to someone in charge of the office of one of the individuals” enumerated in section

13 416.10(b). Plaintiffs failed to satisfy this requirement and, instead, delivered the papers to the office

14 address of CSI. [Hinks Decl.; Exh. A; McShane Decl., ¶ 3.] This too is a fatal defect. See Dill v.

15 Berquist Construction Co., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1435-36 (1994) (holding that summons and

16 complaint addressed to the corporation (the party to be served) was defective because it was not

17 mailed to an individual person to be served).

18 Finally, even if Plaintiffs had served the right individual at the right address (and they did
19 neither), service was defective because Plaintiffs failed to complete the alleged service. Code of

20 Civil Procedure § 415.20 states that the summons and complaint must be left “at the office of the

21 person to be served” and then mailed to “the place where a copy of the summons and complaint

22 were left.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(a). However, despite the perjured proof of service and

23 declaration of mailing, Plaintiffs failed to mail the summons and complaint as required. [McShane

24 Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.]

25 In sum, service did not comply with the service statutes. The Court lacks jurisdiction over

26 RTC. Until proper service upon RTC is effectuated, any further proceedings in this court as against

27 RTC would be “void” See Honda Motor Co., 10 Cal. App. 4th at 1048.

28

67512977v1 7
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 B. The Court Should Sanction Plaintiffs for Their False Proofs of Service and
2 Continuing Abuses
3 In addition, RTC respectfully submits that the Court should sanction Plaintiffs for (1) filing

4 a knowingly defective and false proof of service and declaration of mailing; and (2) Plaintiffs’

5 repeated and continuing abuses of the Court’s processes and failures to comply with Court orders

6 and the Rules of Court. RTC hereby joins in the motions of CSI and CC and fully agree and submit

7 that Plaintiffs should be ordered to pay sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 177.5. In

8 addition, Plaintiffs’ nine out-of-state lawyers who have improperly made appearances in this lawsuit

9 should be barred from participating in this action for all of the reasons set forth in CSI and CC’s

10 motions.

11 Further, RTC adds that the proof of service and declaration of mailing filed in respect to

12 RTC are were made and filed in bad faith. RTC’s office address is no secret; it is publicly listed

13 with the California Secretary of State and can be accessed in seconds online. [McShane Decl., ¶ 3.]

14 The same search also identifies RTC’s designated agent for service of process in Woodland Hills.

15 [Id.] Yet, Plaintiffs did not serve RTC at its office address or through its designated agent for service

16 and, instead, chose to file a defective proof of service falsely claiming—as part of their continuing

17 efforts to smear the Scientology religion in the press as discussed further in the CSI and CC

18 motions—that service had been made upon Scientology’s worldwide ecclesiastical leader. [Hinks
19 Decl., Exh. A.] They then filed a false proof of service claiming that the papers had been

20 subsequently mailed when they had not. See Kappel v. Bartlett, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1457, 1464 (1988)

21 (filing false declarations of service is an abuse of the Court’s processes; “[c]haos would result if the

22 legal community could not depend on the truthfulness of declarations of service of process. Public

23 policy requires that it be regarded as serious, with consequences sufficiently adverse to act as

24 deterrence.”).

25 The RTC proof of service and declaration of mailing was filed as part and parcel of group

26 of proofs of service that are outright fraudulent as discussed in the CSI and CC motions. The filings

27 occur in the context of continuing litigation abuses and failures to comply with Court orders and the

28 Rules of Court. Sanctions are appropriate to deter further misconduct.

67512977v1 8
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion and joinder and (1) quash the

3 service of summons upon RTC; (2) impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 177.5; and

4 (3) enter an order striking the appearance of the out-of-state attorneys and refusing to admit them

5 pro hac vice given their conduct.

7 DATED: November 20, 2019 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
ROBERT E. MANGELS
8 MATTHEW D. HINKS
9

10
By:
11 MATTHEW D. HINKS
Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant
12
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67512977v1 9
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 DECLARATION OF WARREN MCSHANE
2 I, Warren McShane, declare as follows:

3 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and if called upon

4 as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. I make this declaration in support of

5 Specially Appearing Defendant Religious Technology Center’s Notice Of Motion And Motion To

6 Quash.

7 2. I joined the staff of Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) in March 1983. In August

8 1983, I became a Director and Officer of RTC and, in 1993, I became RTC’s President. I am also

9 the custodian of RTC’s records and RTC’s Legal Officer responsible for the creation and execution

10 of all legal agreements and contracts both internally and externally.

11 3. RTC’s office address is 1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California

12 90028. That address is listed with the California Secretary of State and can be identified quickly by

13 accessing the Secretary of State’s database online at https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov. The

14 Secretary of State’s website also identifies RTC’s agent for service of process: Sherman Lenske,

15 who maintains an office in Woodland Hills.

Butler & Mitchell LLP

16 4. It has been Church policy since 1966 that all legal, tax, accountancy and government
Jeffer Mangels

17 mail directed to RTC is sent to the Legal Officer immediately upon receipt. This type of mail may

18 not be forwarded to any executive or staff member unless first reviewed by the Legal Officer. I
JMBM

19 have been carrying out the function of Legal Officer for RTC continually since 1983.

20 5. I have read the Declaration of Mailing filed with the Court by Mr. Jeffrey Pink on

21 October 17, 2019 in which he declares under the penalty of perjury that he mailed with First Class

22 Postage the Summons; Complaint; Civil Case Sheet; Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum And

23 Statement of Location; Notice of Jury Fee Deposit and Notice of Case Management Conference,

24 addressed to David Miscavige at 6331 Hollywood Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90028.

25 6. No mail from Mr. Pink or his company addressed to David Miscavige was ever

26 received by RTC. Given RTC’s long-standing policy described above, had it been the case that the

27 materials described by Mr. Pink were sent by mail to RTC, they would have been immediately

28 routed to me. However, although a month has passed since Mr. Pink purportedly mailed the

67493822v3 10
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 materials to RTC, I have not received them or anything else from Mr. Pink. In fact, I have not

2 received any materials in the mail from any person regarding this lawsuit.

3 7. I have also reviewed the proof of service filed by Plaintiffs in this matter. The proof

4 of service indicates that the complaint and summons in this matter were served upon "David

5 Miscavige / Director." Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion and the

6 Chairman of the Board of RTC. Mr. Miscavige is not, and has never been, an officer of RTC and

7 has not been designated by RTC as an authorized agent for service of process.

8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

9 is true and correct.

10 Executed on this \ day of November, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.

11

12
Warren McShane
13

14

15

16
ti 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67493822v3 2
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 DECLARATION OF MATTHEW D. HINKS
2 I, Matthew D. Hinks, declare as follows:

3 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am a partner with

4 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, attorneys of record for Specially Appearing Defendant

5 Religious Technology Center (“RTC”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. If

6 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein. I make this

7 declaration in support of Specially Appearing Defendant Religious Technology Center’s Notice Of

8 Motion And Motion To Quash.

9 2. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on August 22, 2019. Plaintiffs allege in their complaint

10 causes of action for alleged stalking, invasion of privacy infliction of emotional distress and loss of

11 consortium. However, Plaintiffs’ complaint makes no specific allegations of wrongdoing against

12 RTC.

13 3. On or about October 21, 2019, Plaintiffs filed in this matter a proof of service of

14 summons and declaration of mailing claiming that Plaintiffs had served RTC with the summons and

15 complaint in this matter by substituted service. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct
Butler & Mitchell LLP

16 copy of the proof of service of summons and declaration of mailing, which was obtained through
Jeffer Mangels

17 the Court’s website.

18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
JMBM

19 is true and correct.

20 Executed on this 18th day of November, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.

21

22

23

24
Matthew D. Hinks
25

26

27

28

67493822v3 12
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
EXHIBIT A
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/21/2019 10:44 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by W. Moore,Deputy Clerk

POS-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: FOR COURT USE ONLY
Robert Thompson, Esq. (SBN 250038)
Thompson Law Offices
700 Airport Boulevard
Suite 160
Burlingame, CA 94010

TELEPHONE NO.: (650) 513-6111 FAX NO.: (650) 513-6071

ATTORNEY FOR: Plaintiff
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles
MAILING ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles
CITY AND ZIP CODE: CA, 90012
BRANCH NAME: Main
PLAINTIFF: Chrissie Carnell Bixler, et al CASE NUMBER:
DEFENDANT: Church Of Scientology International, et al 19STCV29458

Ref. No. or File No.:

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS BIXLER, ET AL

(Separate proof of service is required for each party served.)

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
2. I served copies of:
a. X summons
b. X complaint
c. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) package
d. X Civil Case Cover Sheet (served in complex cases only)
e. I cross-complaint
f. X I other (specify documents):
Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum And Statement Of Location, Notice Of Jury Fee Deposit, Notice Of Case
Management Conference
3. a. Party served (specify name ofparty as shown on documents served):
Religious Technology Center
b. X Person (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person
under item 5b on whom substituted service was made)
David Miscavige / Director

4. Address where the party was served:

6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90028

5. I served the party (check proper box)

a. by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): (2) at (time):
b. X by substituted service. On (date):10/10/2019 at (time):11: 50 am I left the documents listed in item 2 with
or in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3):
"John Doe" Front Desk Agent
Description: Age: 58, Sex: M, Race/Skin Color: White, Height: 5 '10", Weight: 200, Hair: Grey, Glasses: N

X (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of
business of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or
usual place of abode of the party. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual
mailing address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box.
I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
X I thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be
served at the place where copies were left (Code Civ. Proc., 415.20). I mailed the documents on

Pagela2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of California
POS-010 [Rev. January 1, 20071 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Job Number AYB-2019001398
 PLAINTIFF: Chrissie Carnell Bixler, et al CASE NUMBER:
DEFENDANT: Church Of Scientology International, et al 19STCV29458

(date): from (city): or

a declaration of mailing is attached.
(5) I attached a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.
C. by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the
address shown in item 4, by first-class mail, postage prepaid,
(1) on (date): (2) from (city):
(3) with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt and a postage-paid return envelope
addressed to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt.) (Code Civ. Proc.,
415.30.)
(4) to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc., 415.40.)
d. by other means (specify means of service and authorizing code section):

Additional page describing service is attached.

6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows:
a. as an individual defendant.
b. as the person sued under the fictitious name of(specify):
c. as occupant.
d. X On behalf of(specifA: Religious Technology Center
under the following Code of Civil Procedure section:
416.10 (corporation) 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
416.20 (defunct corporation) 416.60 (minor)
416.30 (joint stock company/association) 416.70 (ward or conservatee)
416.40 (association or partnership) 416.90 (authorized person)
416.50 (public entity) 415.46 (occupant)
other:
7. Person who served papers
a. Name:Robert Hall
Firm:Are You Being Served?, Inc.
b. Address:1325 Howard Avenue, PMB 507, Burlingame, CA 94010
c. Telephone number: (650) 348-7378
d. The fee for the service was: $78.51
e. I am:
(1) not a registered California process server.
(2) exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).
(3) I X a registered California process server:
(i) I owner employee X independent contractor.
(ii) Registration No.:6932
(iii) COUnty:Los Angeles

8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Or
9. I am a California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: G cirt,loc-i. 10, •2 c-"J1

Robert Hall
(NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERS/SHERIFF OR MARSHAL) (SIGNATURE)

Page 2 of 2

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judicial Council of California
POS-010 [Rev. January 1, 2007] PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Job Number AYB-2019001398
 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: FOR COURT USE ONLY
Robert Thompson, Esq. (SBN 250038)
Thompson Law Offices
700 Airport Boulevard
Suite 160
Burlingame, CA 94010

TELEPHONE NO.: (650) 513-6111 FAX NO.: (650) 513-6071

ATTORNEY FOR: Plaintiff
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles
MAILING ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles
CITY AND ZIP CODE: CA, 90012
BRANCH NAME: Main
PLAINTIFF: Chrissie Carnell Bixler, et al CASE NUMBER:
DEFENDANT: Church Of Scientology International, et al 19STCV29458

Ref. No. or File No.:

DECLARATION OF MAILING BIXLER, ET AL

1. I, Jeffrey Pink, am at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action.

2. Documents mailed:

Summons; Complaint; Civil Case Sheet; Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum And Statement Of
Location, Notice Of Jury Fee Deposit, Notice Of Case Management Conference

3. A true copy of the documents were sealed in an envelope and placed in the United States mail with First Class postage
prepaid as follows:

Date: 10/11/2019
Location: Burlingame, CA
Addressed: David Miscavige / Director, 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA
90028 a.e.1,1..pAsS .Vet.)Iro cs,7

4. Person performing mailing:

Name: Jeffrey Pink

Firm: Are You Being Served?, Inc.
Address: 1325 Howard Avenue, PMB 507, Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone Number: (650) 348-7378

5. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: CO S 12c

Jeffrey Pink
(PRINTED NAME) (SIGNATURE

Page 1 of 1

DECLARATION OF MAILING Job Number AYB-2019001398

 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1900 Avenue
4 of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4308.

5 On November 20, 2019, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S
6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND FOR
SANCTIONS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 128.5; MEMORANDUM OF
7 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

8 NOTICE OF JOINDER AND JOINDER IN MOTIONS OF SPECIALLY-

APPEARING DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AND
9 CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL FOR SANCTIONS as follows:

10 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

11 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
12 mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
13 On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with
14 postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The
envelope was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California.
15
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
Butler & Mitchell LLP

16 foregoing is true and correct.

Jeffer Mangels

17 Executed on November 20, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.

18
JMBM

19
Belinda Curtis
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67493822v3 13
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 1 SERVICE LIST
2

3 Robert Thompson, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff

Thompson Law Offices Phone: (650) 513-6111
4 700 Airport Boulevard Fax: (650) 513-6071
Suite 160
5 Burlingame, CA 94010

10

11

12

13

14

15
Butler & Mitchell LLP

16
Jeffer Mangels

17

18
JMBM

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67493822v3 14
MOTION TO QUASH AND JOINDER
 Journal Technologies Court Portal

Make a Reservation
CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER, et al. vs CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, et al.
Case Number: 19STCV29458     Case Type: Civil Unlimited     Category: Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage
tort    
Date Filed: 2019-08-22   Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 57

Reservation
Case Name:
CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER, et al. vs CHURCH OF Case Number:
SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, et al. 19STCV29458
Type: Status:
Motion to Quash Service of Summons RESERVED
Filing Party: Location:
Religious Technology Center (Defendant) Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 57
Date/Time: Number of Motions:
02/05/2020 8:30 AM 1
Reservation ID: Con rmation Code:
241920457728 CR-UPITYJUC8XCJRCQ7D

Fees
Description
Description Fee
Fee Qty
QtY Amount
Amount

First Paper Fees (Unlimited Civil) 435.00 1 435.00

Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 11.96 1 11.96

TOTAL $446.96
$446.96

Payment
Amount: Type:
$446.96 Visa
Account Number: Authorization:
XXXX9975 143173

 Print Receipt + Reserve Another Hearing

Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved.