Steven Gregory Sloat, Ed Bryan, Church of Scientology International, David J. Lubow, and Monty Drake v. Monique Rathbun

ACCEPTED
03-14-00199-CV
4055345
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
2/6/2015 1:53:57 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-14-00199-CV
______________________________________
COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/6/2015 1:53:57 PM
______________________________________ JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, et al.
Appellants,
v.
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Appellee.
______________________________________
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
REPLY RE: NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF
APPELLANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
______________________________________
On Appeal from the 207th Judicial District Court
of Comal County, Texas
Trial Court No. C-2013-1082B
Hon. Dib Waldrip of the 433rd Judicial District Court, Presiding
______________________________________

Of Counsel: Thomas S. Leatherbury
State Bar No. 12095275
Eric M. Lieberman Marc A. Fuller
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, State Bar No. 24032210
KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN PC VINSON & ELKINS LLP
45 Broadway, Suite 1700 Trammell Crow Center
New York, New York 10006 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
Telephone: 212.254.1111 Dallas, Texas 75201
Facsimile: 212.674.4614 Telephone: 214.220.7792
elieberman@rbskl.com Facsimile: 214.999.7792
tleatherbury@velaw.com
mfuller@velaw.com
Ricardo G. Cedillo George H. Spencer, Jr.
State Bar No. 04043600 State Bar No. 18921001
Isaac J. Huron CLEMENS & SPENCER
State Bar No. 24032447 112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1300
Les J. Strieber III San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531
State Bar No. 19398000 Telephone: 210.227.7121
DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC. Facsimile: 210.227.0732
McCombs Plaza, Suite 500 spencer@clemens-spencer.com
755 E. Mulberry Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78212
Telephone: 210.822.6666
Facsimile: 210.822.1151
rcedillo@lawdcm.com
ihuron@lawdcm.com
lstreiber@lawdcm.com

Attorneys for Appellant Church of Scientology International
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant Church of Scientology International (“Church”) requests leave to

file a short notice that provides subsequent history in Woodward v. Church of

Scientology Int’l et al., Case No. BC540097 in the Superior Court for the State of

California for the County of Los Angeles. In light of Woodward’s relevance to the

Court’s questions during oral argument regarding how Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute

should be applied in mixed-claims cases, where some claims arise from activities

protected by the statute and some claims allegedly do not, the Church brought

Woodward to the Court’s attention in a previously-filed Notice of Supplemental

Authority, which the Court granted leave to file on December 3, 2014.

In response to the Church’s Notice, Appellee Monique Rathbun argued that

Woodward was “not helpful” to the Court’s analysis in this case, in part because

there was a pending motion for reconsideration. See Jan. 6, 2015 Response. The

Church now seeks leave to submit notice of the Woodward court’s order denying

the motion for reconsideration. See Ex. 1.

Wherefore, the Church prays that this Court grant this Motion for Leave to

File Reply re: Notice of Supplemental Authority of Appellant Church of

Scientology, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and grant any such other relief

to which it may be justly entitled.

-1-
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas S. Leatherbury
Thomas S. Leatherbury
State Bar No. 12095275
Marc A. Fuller
State Bar No. 24032210
VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
Dallas, Texas 75201-2975
Telephone: 214.220.7792
Facsimile: 214.999.7792
tleatherbury@velaw.com
mfuller@velaw.com

Ricardo G. Cedillo
State Bar No. 04043600
Isaac J. Huron
State Bar No. 24032447
Les J. Strieber III
State Bar No. 19398000
DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.
McCombs Plaza, Suite 500
755 E. Mulberry Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78212
Telephone: 210.822.6666
Facsimile: 210.822.1151
rcedillo@lawdcm.com
ihuron@lawdcm.com

-2-
George H. Spencer, Jr.
State Bar No. 18921001
CLEMENS & SPENCER
112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1300
San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531
Telephone: 210.227.7121
Facsimile: 210.227.0732
spencer@clemens-spencer.com

Of Counsel:

Eric M. Lieberman
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD,
KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN PC
45 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: 212.254.1111
Facsimile: 212.674.4614
elieberman@rbskl.com

Attorneys for Appellant Church of
Scientology International

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On February 6, 2015, I conferred with Appellee’s counsel, Leslie Hyman,
who stated that Appellee is not opposed to this motion.

/s/ Marc A. Fuller____________
Marc A. Fuller

-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on the 6th day of February, 2015, the
foregoing Motion for Leave to File Reply re: Notice of Supplemental Authority for
Appellant Church of Scientology International was served on the following
attorneys in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure via electronic filing or email.

Ray B. Jeffrey Marc F. Wiegand
JEFFREY & MITCHELL, P. C. THE WIEGAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
2631 Bulverde Road, Suite 105 434 N. Loop 1604 West,
Bulverde, TX 78163 Suite 2201
San Antonio, TX 78232

Elliott S. Cappuccio Lamont A. Jefferson
PULMAN, CAPPUCCIO PULLEN HAYNES & BOONE LLP
& BENSON, LLP 112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1200
2161 N.W. Military Hwy., #400 San Antonio, TX 78205-1540
San Antonio, TX 78213

J. Iris Gibson Jonathan H. Hull
HAYNES & BOONE LLP REAGAN BURRUS
600 Congress Ave., Suite 1300 401 Main Plaza, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78701 New Braunfels, TX 78130

O. Paul Dunagan Bert H. Deixler
SARLES & OUIMET KENDALL BRILL KLIEGER
370 Founders Square 10100 Santa Monica Blvd.,
900 Jackson Street Suite 1725
Dallas, TX 75202 Los Angeles, CA 90067

Stephanie S. Bascon Wallace B. Jefferson
LAW OFFICE OF STEPHANIE S. BASCON, Rachel Ekery
PLLC ALEXANDER DUBOSE JEFFERSON
297 W. San Antonio Street & TOWNSEND, LLP
New Braunfels, TX 78130 515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350
Austin, TX 78701

/s/ Thomas S. Leatherbury
Thomas S. Leatherbury

-4-
US 3272943v.1
EXHIBIT 1
No. 03-14-00199-CV
______________________________________

COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
______________________________________
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, et al.
Appellants,
v.
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Appellee.
______________________________________
REPLY RE: NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF
APPELLANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
______________________________________
On Appeal from the 207th Judicial District Court
of Comal County, Texas
Trial Court No. C-2013-1082B
Hon. Dib Waldrip of the 433rd Judicial District Court, Presiding
______________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant Church of Scientology International
On December 3, 2014, the Court granted Appellant Church of Scientology

International’s Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority

regarding a California trial court’s ruling in Woodward v. Church of Scientology

Int’l et al., Case No. BC540097 in the Superior Court for the State of California for

the County of Los Angeles. As the Church noted, the Woodward ruling is relevant

to the Court’s questions during oral argument regarding how Texas’s anti-SLAPP

statute should be applied in cases involving mixed claims, where some claims arise

from activities protected by the statute and some claims allegedly do not. See Dec.

3, 2014 Notice of Supplemental Authority.

In response to the Church’s Notice, Appellee Monique Rathbun argued that

Woodward is “not helpful” to the Court’s analysis of the mixed-claims issue

because “the trial court’s order . . . [wa]s the subject of a motion to reconsider . . .

.” See Jan. 6, 2015 Response at Ex. 1, p. 2.

The Woodward court has now denied the motion for reconsideration cited by

Appellee. A copy of the court’s tentative ruling denying the motion for

reconsideration is attached to this Reply as Ex. A, and a copy of the transcript of

the January 7, 2015, hearing during which the court adopted the tentative ruling is

attached to this Reply as Ex. B. The court’s order is now final.

-1-
Respectfully submitted,

Ricardo G. Cedillo /s/ Thomas S. Leatherbury
State Bar No. 04043600 Thomas S. Leatherbury
Isaac J. Huron State Bar No. 12095275
State Bar No. 24032447 Marc A. Fuller
Les J. Strieber III State Bar No. 24032210
State Bar No. 19398000 Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
McCombs Plaza, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75201-2975
755 E. Mulberry Avenue Telephone: 214.220.7792
San Antonio, Texas 78212 Facsimile: 214.999.7792
Telephone: 210.822.6666 tleatherbury@velaw.com
Facsimile: 210.822.1151 mfuller@velaw.com
rcedillo@lawdcm.com
ihuron@lawdcm.com George H. Spencer, Jr.
State Bar No. 18921001
Clemens & Spencer
112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1300
San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531
Telephone: 210.227.7121
Facsimile: 210.227.0732
spencer@clemens-spencer.com

-2-
Of Counsel:

Eric M. Lieberman
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard,
Krinsky & Lieberman PC
45 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, New York 10006
Telephone: 212.254.1111
Facsimile: 212.674.4614
elieberman@rbskl.com

Attorneys for Appellant Church of Scientology International

-3-
US 3271742v.1
EXHIBIT A
1/6/2015 www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/ResultPopup.aspx

DEPARTMENT 56 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

DEPARTMENT 56, JUDGE MICHAEL JOHNSON
LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

The Court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 2.00 pm of the court day before the hearing.
The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)].

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must
agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the
day of the hearing (213/663-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2)
serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no
telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call.

Court reporters are not provided for any of the court’s morning sessions. Parties who want a record of
motions and other morning proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: BC540097 Hearing Date: January 07, 2015 Dept: 56

Case Name: Woodward v. Church of Scientology International, et al.
Case No.: BC540097
Matters: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and for Leave to File Amended Complaint; (2)
Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs

Tentative Ruling: (1) Motion for reconsideration/leave is denied; (2) Motion for fees and costs is
granted.

Plaintiff Vance Woodward filed this action against Defendants Church of Scientology International,
Church of Scientology of San Francisco and related entities. On 10/8/14 the court granted Defendants’
anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff now moves to reconsider the court’s 10/8/14 ruling and for leave to file
an amended complaint. Defendants move for recovery of their attorney fees and costs pursuant to CCP
§425.16(c)(1).

Motion for Reconsideration/Leave –
Plaintiff moves to reconsider the court’s 10/8/14 ruling. A motion for reconsideration may only be
brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer “new or different facts, circumstances, or
law” which could not have been produced with reasonable diligence at the time of the prior motion.
See CCP §1008(a); Forrest v. Dept. of Corp. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202.

Plaintiff has not met this standard. Plaintiff’s arguments only constitute further elaboration on the
matters presented in his opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff appears to have been aware of them at
the time of the hearing. Plaintiff claims that he was misled by Defendants’ arbitration motion which
caused him to focus on certain issues to the exclusion of others. But this also could have been raised at
the time of the hearing. Plaintiff has not presented any persuasive reasons to re-examine the court’s
10/8/14 ruling, and the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Plaintiff also moves for leave to file an amended complaint, but this is prohibited under the law. Once
http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/ResultPopup.aspx 1/2
1/6/2015 www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/ResultPopup.aspx

an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, the plaintiff may not amend the complaint. This is especially true for a
request to file an amended complaint after an anti-SLAPP motion has been granted. See Simmons v.
Allstate (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073 (“Allowing a SLAPP plaintiff leave to amend the complaint
once the court finds the prima facie showing has been met would completely undermine the statute by
providing the pleader a ready escape from section 425.16's quick dismissal remedy.”). Plaintiff’s
request for leave to amend is denied.

Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs –
Defendants have jointly moved for recovery of attorney fees and costs pursuant to CCP §425.16(c)(1)
as the prevailing parties on the anti-SLAPP motion. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable
fee generally begins with the “lodestar” (the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the
reasonable hourly rate), which may be adjusted up or down by relevant factors. See Ketchum v. Moses
(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1136.

Defendants request attorney fees totaling $125,250, calculated as 118.4 hours at the hourly rate of $750
for Gary S. Soter and 72.9 hours at the hourly rate of $500 for Kendrick L. Moxon. Defendants also
seek costs of $2,832.50. Defendants have supported the motion with evidence of the experience and
background of the attorneys, and with billing records which itemize the time spent. The declarations
and time sheets are sufficient to support Defendants’ claims as to the time expended. See Lunada
Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 487-88. The records have been properly edited,
with exclusion of time spent on the arbitration motion and other extraneous matters.

The court has considered all relevant factors in determining the reasonableness of Defendants’ attorney
fee request, and will award a total of $87,675 in fees. This is approximately 70% of the amount
requested, and the total request has been reduced to reflect duplication between the two law firms, the
rather high hourly rates charged (particularly for Soter), and the reasonable scope of the work required
for Defendants’ motions. In light of all the circumstances and the matters reviewed in this case, the
court believes that $87,675 is an appropriate award. The court will also grant Defendants’ requested
costs of $2,832.50, for a total award of $90,507.50.

http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/ResultPopup.aspx 2/2
EXHIBIT B
1
2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
DEPARTMENT 56 HON. MICHAEL JOHNSON, JUDGE
5
6 )
)
7 VANCE WOODWARD, )
) CASE NO. BC540097
8 )
)
9 PLAINTIFF, )
)
10 VS. )
)
11 )
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY )
12 INTERNATIONAL, ET. AL., )
)
13 )
DEFENDANT. )
14 )
______________________________________)
15
16 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
17
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2015
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 TRACY DYRNESS, CSR NO. 12323
OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEM

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 APPEARANCES:
2
FOR PLAINTIFF: VANCE WOODWARD, ESQ.
3 ATTORNEY AT LAW
8335 W. SUNSET BOULEVARD
4 SUITE 247
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90069
5
6
FOR DEFENDANT: GARY SCOTT SOTER, ESQ.
7 ATTORNEY AT LAW
22287 MULHOLLAND HIGHWAY
8 SUITE 169
CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302
9
KENDRICK L. MOXON, ESQ.
10 ATTORNEY AT LAW
3500 W. OLIVE AVENUE
11 SUITE 300
BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91505
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 CASE NUMBER: BC540097
2 CASE NAME: WOODWARD VS. CHURCH OF
3 SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
4 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2015
5 DEPARTMENT 56 HON. MICHAEL JOHNSON, JUDGE
6 APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
7 TIME: 8:54 A.M.
8
9 THE COURT: WOODWARD VERSUS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY,
10 ET. AL. YOUR APPEARANCES PLEASE.
11 MR. WOODWARD: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. VANCE
12 WOODWARD, REPRESENTING MYSELF AS PLAINTIFF.
13 MR. MOXON: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. KENDRICK
14 MOXON FOR THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
15 MR. SOTER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I'M GARY
16 SOTER ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
17 INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY WESTERN UNITED STATES
18 AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION.
19 THE COURT: THIS IS HERE ON TWO MOTIONS, THE
20 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND LEAVE TO FILE
21 AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FEES
22 AND COSTS FOLLOWING THE GRANTING OF THEIR ANTI-SLAPP
23 MOTIONS IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. LET'S TAKE THE MOTION BY
24 PLAINTIFF FIRST. I PREPARED TENTATIVE RULINGS ON BOTH OF
25 THEM. DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS YOUR MOTION, MR. WOODWARD?
26 MR. WOODWARD: I DO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. YOUR
27 HONOR, I SUBMITTED UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS
28 SOLD ME GOODS AND SERVICES AT FIXED PREPAID PRICES WITH A

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 PUBLICALLY-STATED REFUND POLICY THAT THEY WILL REFUND
2 PAYMENTS ON DEMAND. THEIR POLICY IS THAT REFUND DEMANDS
3 WILL BE PAID IN FULL WITH THE PROVISO OF DEFENDANTS
4 REFUSING TO SELL FURTHER GOODS AND SERVICES TO THAT
5 CUSTOMER.
6 I SUBMITTED WHAT EVIDENCE I COULD MUSTER IN THE
7 13 DAYS THAT I HAD TO PREPARE MY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
8 ANTI-SLAPP MOTION; THAT'S IN MY FIRST DECLARATION,
9 PARAGRAPHS 149 TO 155, ALONG WITH ALL BUT ONE OF THE 13
10 EXHIBITS THAT I SUBMITTED WITH THAT DECLARATION, WHICH ARE
11 INVOICES, ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND PRICE LISTS. DEFENDANTS
12 HAVE NOT CONTRADICTED THAT ORIGINAL EVIDENCE. DEFENDANTS
13 MERELY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THEIR OWN IRS
14 SUBMISSION, WHICH WAS EXHIBIT PRJN1 OF MY REQUEST FOR
15 JUDICIAL NOTICE.
16 I PRODUCED MORE EVIDENCE WHEN I OBTAINED MORE. FOR
17 INSTANCE, I DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE OEC VOLUMES BEFORE
18 THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' ANTI-SLAPP MOTION. I OBTAINED
19 THOSE AFTERWARDS. I PRODUCED THOSE EXHIBITS FROM THE OEC
20 VOLUMES WITH MY DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF MY MOTION FOR
21 RECONSIDERATION AS EXHIBITS VWD14, 15, 16, 18, 22 AND 23.
22 I ALSO SUBMITTED UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OF THE
23 DEFENDANTS' PUBLICALLY-STATED RETURN POLICY WITH MY MOTION
24 FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE FORM OF DEFENDANTS' OWN IRS
25 SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT VWD24, WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER DENIED
26 MAKING. AND MY DECLARATIONS THEMSELVES SHOW THAT
27 DEFENDANTS PUBLICALLY AND REPEATEDLY CLAIM THEY RETURN
28 FUNDS ON DEMAND. MY INABILITY TO OBTAIN SOME EVIDENCE

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 SOONER IS REASONABLE FOR SEVERAL REASONS, ONE OF WHICH IS
2 I HAD NO WAY OF PREDICTING THAT THE COURT WOULD REJECT MY
3 ORIGINAL UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS'
4 PUBLICALLY-AVOWED REFUND POLICY. I HAD LESS THAN
5 TWO WEEKS TO COME UP WITH THE EVIDENCE OF ALL ELEMENTS IN
6 SUPPORT OF MY BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CONVERSION CLAIMS.
7 AT NO POINT DID ANYBODY CONTRADICT THE FACT THAT
8 THERE WAS A CONTRACT, NOR THE DEFENDANTS'
9 PUBLICALLY-STATED REFUND POLICY IS TO REFUND MONEY ON
10 DEMAND. NOW, THE OEC VOLUME EXHIBIT I SUBMITTED WITH MY
11 DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF MY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
12 WERE NOT IN MY POSSESSION. I OBTAINED THOSE LATER. I
13 OBTAINED A FEW THROUGH CONTACTS ON THE INTERNET THAT I
14 REACHED OUT TO LOOKING FOR THESE MATERIALS. THEN I WENT
15 TO THE L.A. COUNTY LIBRARY DOWNTOWN AND OBTAINED COPIES
16 MYSELF OF THE SAME DOCUMENTS.
17 I HAD NO ABILITY TO GET THOSE DOCUMENTS BEFORE OTHER
18 THAN, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT I SPENT OVER 100 HOURS
19 PREPARING MY OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS' TWO ORIGINAL
20 MOTIONS IN 13 DAYS AND DID SUBMIT EVIDENCE, ADMISSIBLE
21 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MY POSITION THAT THIS DEFENDANTS'
22 PUBLICALLY-STATED REFUND POLICY.
23 THE COURT: WHY WASN'T ANY OF THAT RAISED AT THE
24 HEARING IN OCTOBER? YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY. YOU KNOW THAT
25 THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE IS A FAIRLY UNIQUE PROCEDURE, WHICH
26 CAN BE TERMINAL. IT'S NOT A NEW LAW. IT'S BEEN AROUND
27 FOR SOME TIME, AND THERE'S DEVELOPED CASE LAW WHICH MAKES
28 IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT MUST BE TAKEN

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 SERIOUSLY. AND IF YOU'RE THE PLAINTIFF, YOU HAVE TO MAKE
2 YOUR BEST SHOWING AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OR YOU'RE
3 SUBJECT TO THE ENTIRE CASE BEING DISMISSED WITHOUT THE
4 OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A NEW PLEADING OR PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE
5 OR THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU'VE DONE TODAY. IF YOU WERE
6 TRULY IN THIS BIND THAT YOU HAVE TRIED TO DESCRIBE, WHY
7 WASN'T ANY OF THAT RAISED AT THE HEARING?
8 MR. WOODWARD: I THINK THE MAIN REASON, YOUR HONOR,
9 IS NOBODY EVER DISPUTED THE FACT THAT DEFENDANTS'
10 PUBLICALLY-STATED REFUND POLICIES THAT THEY RETURN
11 PAYMENTS ON DEMAND. I DID PRESENT THAT EVIDENCE IN MY
12 ORIGINAL DECLARATION. DEFENDANTS NEVER CONTRADICTED IT.
13 THEY DID SUBMIT THEIR ENROLLMENT APPLICATION, WHICH DOES
14 NOT CONTRADICT THEIR PUBLICALLY-STATED REFUND POLICY.
15 IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.
16 THEY NEVER DISPUTED THAT FACT. ALL I DID IS
17 PROCEEDED TO GATHER EVEN MORE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MY
18 POSITION, WHICH I HAD NO IDEA THAT THE COURT WOULD REJECT
19 MY EVIDENCE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT I HAD PERSONAL
20 KNOWLEDGE OF AND STATED AS MUCH IN MY DECLARATION.
21 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE?
22 MR. WOODWARD: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WAS JUST ABOUT TO
23 RAISE THE DEFENDANTS' ENROLLMENT APPLICATION IS
24 UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS,
25 WHICH I BRIEFED IN MY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
26 ARBITRATION MOTION AND MY OPPOSITION TO THE ANTI-SLAPP
27 MOTION. I BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE OCTOBER 6TH HEARING AND
28 EXPLAINED WHY IT MATTERS. THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION'S

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 CLAIMED RELIGIOUS STATUS. THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT
2 CORPORATION CLAIMED RELIGIOUS STATUS DOES NOT CHANGE THE
3 FACT THAT THEY ENTERED INTO COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS. THE
4 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY RULED THAT
5 THE EXACT TYPE OF TRANSACTION AT ISSUE; NAMELY, THE
6 EXCHANGE OF MONEY FOR SCIENTOLOGY COUNSELING AND COURSES
7 AT FIXED PRICES IS A QUID PRO QUO TRANSACTION, NOT
8 DONATIVE; THAT'S THE HERNANDEZ CASE.
9 MOREOVER, DEFENDANTS ADMITTED IN THEIR ARBITRATION
10 MOTION FILED IN THIS MATTER AT PAGES 13 TO 14 THAT THESE
11 ARE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS. THEY ASSERTED THE
12 APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, WHICH ONLY
13 APPLIES TO TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING COMMERCE; THAT IS IN
14 DEFENDANTS' ARBITRATION MOTION. I ASK THE COURT TO TAKE
15 JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' ARBITRATION MOTION AND OF
16 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' ARBITRATION MOTION.
17 YOUR HONOR, I ATTEMPTED TO DO SO AT THE ORIGINAL HEARING.
18 I FELT THAT I WAS BEING CUTOFF. IN LOOKING AT THE
19 TRANSCRIPT NOW, I SEE WE WERE TALKING OVER EACH OTHER. I
20 APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT I DID ATTEMPT TO BRING THIS UP AND
21 RAISE IT AT THE HEARING. I SUBMITTED UNCONTRADICTED
22 EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS' PUBLICLY STATE THAT THEY REFUND
23 MONEY ON DEMAND. I SUBMITTED UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THAT
24 IN MY INSTANCE I PREPAID FOR GOODS AND SERVICES FROM
25 DEFENDANTS IN RELIANCE ON THEIR PUBLICALLY-STATED REFUND
26 POLICY AMONG OTHER REPRESENTATIONS. I SUBMITTED
27 UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE IN MY INSTANCE DEFENDANTS
28 COMPLETELY REJECTED MY REFUND DEMAND, WHICH WAS SOLELY FOR

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 THE REFUND OF UNUSED MONEY THAT I HAVE ON ACCOUNT WITH
2 THEM. THAT'S ALL IN MY FIRST DECLARATION FILED WITH MY
3 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' ANTI-SLAPP MOTION. SCIENTOLOGY
4 IS A RELIGION. I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT. THIS IS NOT A
5 RELIGIOUS DISPUTE. IT IS A COMMERCIAL DISPUTE. NO CASES
6 EVER HELD THAT THIS UNCONTRADICTED FACTUAL SCENARIO
7 PRESENTS AN NONJUSTICIABLE RELIGIOUS DISPUTE REGARDLESS OF
8 WHAT ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REMAIN. NO CASE HAS EVER HELD
9 THAT ADVERTISING SPEECH ABOUT ONE'S OWN PRODUCTS IS SPEECH
10 PROTECTED BY THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE.
11 IT'S NOT PROTECTED BY THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE, WHICH
12 COMES FROM THE SCOTT VERSUS METABOLIFE CASE, WHICH I CITED
13 IN MY PAPERS; THAT'S WHERE THE COURT OF APPEAL EXPLAINS
14 HOW IT IS THAT DEFENDANTS' ADVERTISING SPEECH ABOUT THEIR
15 OWN SERVICES AND PRODUCTS DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW
16 OF THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE BECAUSE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IT
17 IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST FOR ANTI-SLAPP
18 PURPOSES.
19 THE APPEALS COURT WROTE, "A MANUFACTURER DOES NOT
20 ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHEN
21 IT PRODUCES A PRODUCT THAT DOES MEET ITS WARRANTED OR
22 REPRESENTED CHARACTERISTICS." IT'S ON PAGE 417 OF THE
23 SCOTT VERSUS METABOLIFE. THE COURT CONTINUED AT PAGE 422,
24 "IN REJECTING THE DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE SUBJECT OF
25 HERBAL DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS IS THE SUBJECT OF PUBLIC
26 INTEREST. THE COURT CONCLUDED THE TOPIC OF THE LAWSUIT
27 WAS NOT HERBAL MEDICINE IN GENERAL. BUT RATHER THIS
28 MANUFACTURER'S MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 BENEFITS OF THIS SPECIFIC PRODUCT. THE COURT FOUND THAT
2 THAT KIND OF SPEECH IS NOT FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH. THIS
3 IS THE RATIONAL OF SCOTT VERSUS METABOLIFE, AND IT APPLIES
4 HERE. THIS IS NOT A DISPUTE ABOUT RELIGIOUS SPEECH, BUT
5 RATHER A DISPUTE ABOUT DEFENDANTS', QUOTE,
6 MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES AND
7 BENEFITS OF THIS SPECIFIC PRODUCT." SO, YOUR HONOR, I HAD
8 NO REASONABLE WAY OF ANTICIPATING THAT THE COURT'S RULING
9 WOULD, IN EFFECT, CREATE LAW CONTRADICTORY TO THE APPEAL
10 COURT'S DECISIONS.
11 AND IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S RULING, I DID GO OUT AND
12 OBTAIN MORE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT
13 DEFENDANTS PUBLICALLY STATE THEY HAVE A CERTAIN RETURN
14 POLICY, WHICH IS TO REFUND MONEY ON DEMAND. IT'S NEVER
15 BEEN CONTRADICTED. IT NEVER WAS CONTRADICTED IN MY
16 ORIGINAL OPPOSITION. IT HASN'T BEEN CONTRADICTED NOW IN
17 CONNECTION WITH MY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
18 THE COURT: THANK YOU. ANY ARGUMENT BY THE DEFENSE?
19 MR. SOTER: YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY. THE COURT'S
20 TENTATIVE IS CORRECT AS A MATTER OF LAW. THERE'S A GOOD
21 REASON THAT MR. WOODWARD NEVER CITED A SINGLE CASE ARISING
22 UNDER CCP SECTION 1008 BECAUSE THOSE CASES ARE
23 DISPOSITIVE. THE CASE THAT IS PRIMARILY ON POINT IS NEW
24 YORK TIMES VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, IN WHICH JUSTICE EPSTEIN
25 REVERSED A TRIAL COURT THAT GRANTED RECONSIDERATION BASED
26 ON DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT WAS OBTAINED ONLY TWO DAYS
27 BEFORE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING BECAUSE THE COURT
28 FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED WAS WITHIN THE

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 CONTROL OF THE OBJECTING PARTY, THE PARTY THAT SOUGHT
2 RECONSIDERATION. BECAUSE IT WAS WITHIN THE CONTROL, THE
3 PARTY HAD AN OBLIGATION TO PRESENT IT TO THE COURT AT THE
4 TIME OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT THE VERY LEAST
5 SEEK A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. THERE ARE NO NEW FACTS
6 HERE.
7 ALL THE FACTS THAT MR. WOODWARD DESCRIBES HE SAYS
8 WERE PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE OR KNOWN TO HIM WHEN HE FILED
9 HIS OPPOSITION IN JUNE. WHEN HE APPEARED IN FRONT OF THIS
10 COURT IN JULY AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND WHEN
11 HE ARGUED THE MOTION ON OCTOBER 8TH, HE NEVER ASKED FOR A
12 CONTINUANCE. HE NEVER TOLD THE COURT THAT HE NEEDED MORE
13 TIME. HE NEVER ASKED US FOR A CONTINUANCE. EVEN WHEN WE
14 WERE HERE ON A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON JULY 31ST AND
15 I SAID TO THE COURT, MR. WOODWARD'S FILED LENGTHY
16 OPPOSITION. WE NEED FIVE EXTRA PAGE. THE COURT GAVE IT
17 TO ME.
18 MR. WOODWARD DIDN'T ASK FOR MORE TIME. HE DIDN'T
19 SAY HE NEEDED ADDITIONAL TIME. HE COULD HAVE, UNDER THE
20 COURT RULES, SUPPLEMENTED HIS PAPERS UP UNTIL THE END OF
21 SEPTEMBER AND CHOSE NOT TO. AND WHAT HE'S SAYING TO THE
22 COURT TODAY IS THAT HE REALLY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS
23 NECESSARY TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE. THAT HIS OPPOSITION WAS
24 ADEQUATE AND HE DIDN'T REALIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
25 MOTION UNTIL THE COURT RULED. NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS
26 SUPERIOR COURT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IF THE PARTY DID NOT
27 SUBMIT EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY
28 TO DO SO, THAT IS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW FOR A

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. MR. WOODWARD SAYS WE SPOKE
2 OVER EACH OTHER AT THE HEARING. HE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE AN
3 OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THE CASE FULLY AT THE OCTOBER 6TH
4 HEARING. THE TRANSCRIPT SAYS THE OPPOSITE. THE COURT TO
5 MR. WOODWARD, "YOU CAN DISCUSS WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE IN
6 RELATION TO THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION." MR. WOODWARD MADE A
7 PROFFER OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS UNAFFECTED BY THE WITHDRAWAL
8 OF THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.
9 THIS IS BECAUSE THE AFFIDAVIT, THE DECLARATIONS THAT
10 WERE FILED BY MR. WOODWARD WERE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO
11 BOTH MOTIONS. HE HAD A FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO
12 ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND NONE OF THESE FACTS RELATE TO
13 THE COURT'S FINDING IN ITS MINUTE ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S
14 RELIGIOUS CHALLENGES HAVE CONFUSED ALL OF HIS CAUSES OF
15 ACTION AND ARE SO PREDOMINANT IN HIS ARGUMENTS. THIS IS
16 NOT A CASE IN WHICH RELIGIOUS PARTIES HAVE PRESENTED A
17 DISCREET PROPERTY DISPUTE THAT CAN BE DETERMINED BY
18 NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW.
19 EVEN IF WE WERE TO CREDIT SOME OF THIS NEW
20 PUBLICALLY-AVAILABLE INFORMATION, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE
21 COURT'S CORE DECISION IN THIS CASE; THAT THIS CONTROVERSY
22 PLED BY MR. WOODWARD IS NOT JUSTICIABLE.
23 THE COURT: THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE BY THE
24 CODEFENDANTS?
25 MR. MOXON: VERY BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. I WISH TO
26 MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT AT THE LAST
27 HEARING, MR. WOODWARD WAS NEVER CUTOFF. THE COURT VERY
28 PROFESSIONALLY AND JUDICIALLY GAVE HIM ALL THE TIME HE

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 WANTED AND ASKED IF HE HAD ANY MORE ARGUMENT. I JUST WANT
2 THAT TO BE QUITE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. LASTLY, THE
3 ASSERTIONS -- I MUST HAVE HEARD MR. WOODWARD SAY 15 OR 20
4 TIMES ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE UNCONTRADICTED. THAT'S
5 JUST SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WAS
6 UNCONTRADICTED.
7 AS MR. SOTER JUST MENTIONED, THE RELIGIOUS ISSUES
8 WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH THAT THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO
9 ADJUDICATE WHAT WAS RELIGIOUS AND WHAT WAS NOT IN HIS
10 INTERPRETATION VERSUS THE CHURCH'S INTERPRETATION OF THESE
11 MATTERS THAT HE RAISED AND ALLEGED POLICIES. IT COULDN'T
12 BE DONE BY THE COURT. I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD TO WHAT
13 MR. SOTER HAS JUST SAID.
14 THE COURT: THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE BY PLAINTIFF?
15 MR. WOODWARD: YES, YOUR HONOR.
16 THE COURT: BRIEFLY PLEASE.
17 MR. WOODWARD: THE EVIDENCE THAT I SUBMITTED IN
18 SUPPORT OF MY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS NOT IN MY
19 CONTROL OR POSSESSION WHEN THE HEARING HAPPENED OR BEFORE
20 THEN. THE EVIDENCE I OBTAINED FROM VOLUMES THAT ARE IN
21 DEFENDANT'S POSITION. WE'VE DONE NO DISCOVERY.
22 I DID NOT KEEP -- ONCE I CEASED BEING A CUSTOMER OF
23 THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, I GOT RID OF NEARLY ALL MY
24 MATERIALS, INCLUDING ANY MATERIALS LIKE THIS THAT I HAD.
25 I DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THESE MATERIALS. IT WAS NOT IN
26 MY POSSESSION. I DID NOT MAKE A STRATEGIC DECISION NOT TO
27 SUBMIT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO DEFENSE
28 COUNSEL HAS CLAIMED. MOREOVER, THE ISSUE HERE IS THE FACT

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 THAT DEFENDANTS WITHDREW THEIR ARBITRATION MOTION AT THE
2 LAST SECOND, NOT THAT I JUST RESTED ON MY LAURELS FOR
3 MONTHS WHILE I COULD HAVE BEEN GATHERING MORE EVIDENCE.
4 THAT HEAD FAKE I TRIED TO BRING UP AT THE HEARING. THE
5 HEARING TRANSCRIPT I HAVE ATTACHED TO, I BELIEVE, MY
6 DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE ATTORNEY'S FEE MOTION BUT
7 WHAT ACTUALLY WAS STATED IN FULL IS I SAID, "THAT TIES
8 INTO DEFENDANTS' ARBITRATION MOTION BECAUSE ARBITRATION
9 MOTIONS ARE APPEALABLE.
10 IF YOU LOSE AN ARBITRATION MOTION, YOU HAVE THE
11 RIGHT OF APPEAL. WHAT I FORESEE HAPPENING HERE
12 POTENTIALLY IS --". THE COURT STATED, "WELL, THAT MOTION
13 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN." I STATED, "IT HAS NOT. IT HAS BEEN
14 TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. I BELIEVE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE." THE
15 COURT STATED, "WELL, IT'S NOT BEFORE ME. ARE THE
16 DEFENDANTS ASSERTING ANY?" MR. MOXON STATED, "NO, YOUR
17 HONOR." THE COURT, "IT'S NOT BEFORE ME. I HAVEN'T EVEN
18 READ IT." SO I STATED, "WELL, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO
19 ADDRESS THIS."
20 THE COURT, "NO. I MEAN I HAVE NOT EVEN READ IT.
21 IT'S NOT ON THE CALENDAR TODAY. IT'S BEING WITHDRAWN.
22 IT'S NOT AT ISSUE." MR. WOODWARD, "I BELIEVE THE
23 SUBSTANCE--". THE COURT, "WE HAVE GOT PLENTY TO TALK
24 ABOUT IN REGARD TO THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION, BUT THERE IS NO
25 ARBITRATION MOTION BEFORE THE COURT." "UNDERSTOOD, YOUR
26 HONOR. THERE ARE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT WITH RESPECT
27 TO THE VALIDITY OF THESE ENROLLMENT APPLICATIONS THAT I
28 CITE." THE COURT, "YOU CAN DISCUSS WHATEVER YOU LIKE IN

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 RELATION TO THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION, BUT NOT MOTIONS THAT
2 HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN." I STATED, "HAVE THEY BEEN WITHDRAWN
3 WITH PREJUDICE, YOUR HONOR, OR WITH THE RIGHT TO RE-BRING
4 THEM?" THE COURT, "IT'S NOT BEFORE ME. I DON'T HAVE IT.
5 IT'S NOT ON CALENDAR. IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN."
6 "UNDERSTOOD, YOUR HONOR. NOW, DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL HAVE
7 RAISED THE ISSUE OF THESE ENROLLMENT APPLICATIONS WHICH
8 WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE ARBITRATION MOTION.
9 THEY ARE RIGHT BACK HERE TODAY CLAIMING THAT I
10 SIGNED THESE AGREEMENTS, WHICH I HAVE ACCORDING TO THESE
11 APPLICATIONS, WHICH I HAVE." THEN I GO ON TO SAY THEY'RE
12 NOT BINDING CONTRACTS, AND I EXPLAIN ONE OF THE REASONS
13 WHY. YOUR HONOR, I DID HONESTLY TRY TO BRING THIS UP. I
14 FELT THAT I WAS BEING TOLD NOT TO DISCUSS THE ARBITRATION
15 MOTION WHATSOEVER. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I RAISED
16 THE ISSUE.
17 I RAISED THE ARBITRATION MOTION. I DID TRY. MR.
18 MOXON SAYS THAT I HAVE RAISED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT NEED
19 ADJUDICATION OR RATHER I RAISED ISSUES THAT WILL REQUIRE
20 THE COURT TO DECIDE WHAT IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND WHAT IS
21 NOT. THAT'S NOT TRUE. NEITHER COUNSEL OR DEFENDANTS HAVE
22 EVER STATED A SINGLE RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT I AM ASKING
23 COURT TO ADJUDICATION, NOT ONE. THEY ALSO SAY THAT MY
24 EVIDENCE HAS BEEN CONTRADICTED OR RATHER IT HAS NOT BEEN
25 UNCONTRADICTED, WHICH IS FALSE. DEFENDANTS HAVE NEVER
26 CLAIMED OR SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY
27 DO NOT HAVE A PUBLICALLY-STATED REFUND POLICY, SAYING THAT
28 THEY REFUND MONEY ON REQUEST. THEY NEVER SUBMITTED ANY

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT OR INDICATING THAT. THEREFORE, MY
2 EVIDENCE THAT THEY DO HAVE THAT PUBLICALLY-STATED REFUND
3 POLICY IS UNCONTRADICTED, BOTH IN MY OPPOSITION TO THE
4 ANTI-SLAPP MOTION AND IN MY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. I
5 USED ALL THE DILIGENCE I COULD. I BELIEVE IT WAS VERY
6 REASONABLE, THE EFFORT I PUT INTO OPPOSING DEFENDANTS'
7 MOTION, ANTI-SLAPP MOTION, YOUR HONOR. IT'S NOT A
8 SITUATION WHERE I FAILED TO EXERCISE REASONABLE DILIGENCE
9 OBTAINING THIS EVIDENCE.
10 THE COURT: THANK YOU. THE RULING IS ADOPTED. AS I
11 TRIED TO EXPRESS, I THINK THIS IS MERELY AN EFFORT TO
12 REARGUE THE MATTER IN LIGHT OF AN ADVERSE RULING. THAT IS
13 NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RECONSIDERATION. I'M NOT GOING TO
14 ELABORATE ON ANY POINTS OTHER THAN THE HEARING ON
15 OCTOBER 6TH. I THINK THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT I
16 GAVE MR. WOODWARD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE WHATEVER
17 POINTS HE WANTED IN RESPECT TO THE ANTI-SLAPP RULING AND
18 MOTION.
19 WHAT HAS BEEN QUOTED IS AN EXCHANGE IN WHICH MR.
20 WOODWARD SEEMED TO WANT, IN MY ESTIMATION, TO ARGUE A
21 MOTION WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT. HE WANTED TO ARGUE
22 THE ARBITRATION MOTION, WHICH HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN. AND HIS
23 REQUEST OR HIS OBSERVATION OR WHATEVER IT WAS ABOUT
24 WHETHER IT WAS WITHDRAWN WITH PREJUDICE OR WITHOUT
25 PREJUDICE SEEMED TO ME TO BE AN EAGERNESS TO GET INTO THE
26 ARBITRATION ISSUES, WHICH WERE NOT BEFORE THE COURT. AS I
27 CANDIDLY EXPRESSED, I HADN'T EVEN READ IT BECAUSE IT HAD
28 BEEN WITHDRAWN. IT WASN'T SOMETHING WE NEEDED TO ADDRESS.

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 IF MR. WOODWARD HAD SOME POINT ABOUT THE ARBITRATION
2 ISSUES THAT RELATED TO THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION, HE WAS
3 CERTAINLY WELCOME TO EXPRESS THOSE. AND I THINK AS AN
4 ATTORNEY, IT WAS HIS OBLIGATION TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO ME
5 THAT HE WAS NOT INTENDING TO ARGUE A MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN
6 WITHDRAWN, BUT THAT HE WAS INSTEAD INTERESTED IN
7 EXPRESSING SOME POINTS ABOUT THE ARBITRATION ISSUES THAT
8 RELATED TO THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION AND NONE OF THAT WAS
9 EXPRESSED.
10 SO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR
11 LEAVE ARE BOTH DENIED. THE OTHER MATTER BEFORE THE COURT
12 IS THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. I
13 PREPARED A TENTATIVE ON THAT, WHICH AWARDS COSTS IN A
14 REDUCED AMOUNT. DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THAT AS MOVING
15 PARTIES.
16 MR. SOTER: I'LL SUBMIT ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE.
17 MR. MOXON: SUBMIT, YOUR HONOR.
18 THE COURT: DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THAT, MR.
19 WOODWARD?
20 MR. WOODWARD: I DO, YOUR HONOR. REGARDING
21 DEFENDANTS' FEES MOTION, THE COURT STATED IN ITS TENTATIVE
22 RULING THAT MR. SOTER CHARGES $750 PER HOUR. THERE'S NO
23 EVIDENCE THAT HE'S EVER CHARGED THAT RATE. I DON'T
24 BELIEVE HE EVEN CLAIMS TO HAVE EVER CHARGED THAT MUCH.
25 RATHER, HE MERELY OPINED THAT HIS SERVICES ARE REASONABLY
26 WORTH $750 PER HOUR, AN OPINION WHICH IS INADMISSIBLE
27 BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT HIS FRIENDS CHARGE THAT MUCH OR
28 HIS ASSOCIATES OR ACQUAINTANCES. NOBODY'S EVER PAID MR.

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 SOTER $750 PER HOUR SO FAR AS THE EVIDENCE SHOWS. IT IS
2 NOT CORRECT TO STATE THAT MR. SOTER CHARGES $750 PER HOUR.
3 HE DOES NOT CHARGE $750 PER HOUR. MOREOVER, DEFENDANTS
4 SUBMITTED NO EVIDENCE OF WHAT A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME
5 IS FOR BRINGING AN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION. THE ONLY SUBMITTED
6 SUPPOSED EVIDENCE OF HOW MUCH TIME THEY TOOK IN THE FORM
7 OF EXHIBITS WITHOUT LAYING ANY FOUNDATION FOR THEIR
8 ADMISSIBLE.
9 THE COURT REFERS TO THEM IN THE TENTATIVE RULINGS AS
10 BILLING RECORDS, BUT DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS NEVER CLAIM
11 THAT THEIR EXHIBITS ARE BILLING RECORD. INDEED, THEY
12 NEVER CLAIMED WHAT THEY CHARGED DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR
13 SERVICES. THOSE EXHIBITS ARE NOT BILLING RECORDS. THE
14 DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIM TO BE
15 ANTI-SLAPP AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH EXPERTS AND THAT THEY TOOK
16 NEARLY 200 HOURS TO BRING THEIR ANTI-SLAPP MOTION WITHOUT
17 ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF AS MUCH. I OBJECT TO THE
18 ADMISSION OF DEFENDANTS' DECLARATIONS AND THEIR EXHIBITS
19 FOR LACK OF FOUNDATION.
20 MOREOVER, DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE OF
21 REASONABLE MARKET RATES. RATHER, THEY ASKED FOR RATES
22 ABOVE WHAT THEY HAVE EVER CHARGED AND WAY ABOVE THE MARKET
23 RATE FOR THEIR WORK AS REFLECTED IN MY EXHIBIT VWD20,
24 WHICH IS A SURVEY OF ATTORNEY RATES ACROSS MANY
25 DIMENSIONS. THEREFORE, DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS OVERREACHED
26 IN THEIR FEE MOTION. THEY ASK FOR UNREASONABLY-INFLATED
27 RATES, WHICH IS THE EXACT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IDENTIFIED
28 IN SERRANO VERSUS UNRUH AT PAGE 635, WHICH I CITED, THAT

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 WARRANTS A COMPLETE DENIAL OF A FEE MOTION. I REQUEST
2 THAT THE COURT DENY DEFENDANTS' FEE MOTION ON THAT BASIS.
3 THANK YOU.
4 THE COURT: ANYTHING BY THE MOVING PARTIES?
5 MR. SOTER: NO, YOUR HONOR.
6 MR. MOXON: NO, YOUR HONOR.
7 THE COURT: THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ADOPTED. I
8 CONSIDERED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ME. THE OBJECTIONS
9 TO THE DECLARATIONS PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE ARE
10 OVERRULED. I HEAR SO MANY ANTI-SLAPP MOTIONS. I THINK
11 I'M BECOMING AN EXPERT ON THE AMOUNT OF WORK REQUIRED AND
12 THE FEES THAT ARE BILLED, NOT ONLY FOR ANTI-SLAPP, BUT FOR
13 DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND TRIALS AND SO FORTH. IT SEEMS LIKE
14 HARDLY A WEEK GOES BY WHERE I'M NOT CALCULATING FEES IN
15 SOME WAY.
16 THAT'S WHAT I TRIED TO DO HERE. I THINK THERE WAS
17 AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WORK INVOLVED, FIRST OF ALL. THERE
18 WAS FROM MY STANDPOINT JUST FROM REVIEWING THE PAPERS AND
19 A GREAT DEAL MORE BY THOSE WHO PREPARED THE PAPERS. MR.
20 WOODWARD, HIMSELF, SAID HE SPENT OVER A HUNDRED HOURS JUST
21 ON HIS OPPOSITION. FRANKLY, NONE OF THAT SURPRISES ME.
22 BUT WHAT I TRIED TO DO HERE IS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL
23 OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE, THE HOURLY RATES AND REACH WHAT
24 I BELIEVE TO BE A FAIR AND REASONABLE AWARD FOR EVERYTHING
25 THAT I SAW, WHICH IS NOT ONLY BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED
26 TO ME HERE, BUT ON MY EXPERIENCE WITH COMPARABLE MOTIONS
27 AND FEE APPLICATIONS BY WHAT I VIEW TO BE COMPARABLE
28 ATTORNEYS. I DID PUT A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT INTO. THIS

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1 IS SOMETHING I'M ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE WITH.
2 MR. MOXON: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
3 MR. SOTER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
4 THE COURT: THE RULINGS WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO
5 THE MINUTE ORDER FOR TODAY. DO YOU BOTH WAIVE NOTICE OF
6 THE RULINGS?
7 MR. SOTER: YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE A PROPOSED
8 JUDGMENT BASED ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE I WOULD LIKE TO
9 HAND UP TO THE COURT.
10 THE COURT: HAVE YOU GIVEN THAT TO MR. WOODWARD?
11 MR. SOTER: I'M DOING SO NOW.
12 THE COURT: WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT TODAY OR
13 DO YOU WANT TIME TO REVIEW IT, MR. WOODWARD?
14 MR. WOODWARD: I'D LIKE TIME TO REVIEW IT, YOUR
15 HONOR.
16 THE COURT: YOU CAN SUBMIT IT TODAY. ANY OBJECTIONS
17 SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN FIVE DAYS.
18 MR. WOODWARD: UNDERSTOOD.
19 THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
20 MR. WOODWARD: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
21
22 (THE PROCEEDINGS IS CONCLUDED.)
23
24
25
26
27
28

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com
1
2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
DEPARTMENT 56 HON. MICHAEL JOHNSON, JUDGE
5
6 )
)
7 VANCE WOODWARD, )
) CASE NO. BC540097
8 )
) REPORTER'S
9 PLAINTIFF, )
) CERTIFICATE
10 VS. )
)
11 )
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY )
12 INTERNATIONAL, ET. AL., )
)
13 )
DEFENDANT. )
14 )
______________________________________)
15
16 I, TRACY DYRNESS, OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEM OF THE
17 COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS
18 ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1
19 THROUGH 19, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT
20 OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER ON
21 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2015.
22
23 DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.
24

25 ____________________________________, CSR NO. 12323
OFFICIAL REPORTER
26
27
28

Coalition of Court Reporters of Los Angeles
205 South Broadway, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90012 | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com

Steven Gregory Sloat, Ed Bryan, Church of Scientology International, David J. Lubow, and Monty Drake v. Monique Rathbun

Related Cases