Haney v. Scientology: Miscavige Motion To Quash

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/20/2019 04:23 PM Sherri R.
Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Soto,Deputy Clerk
1 ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN GARTSIDE LLP

JEFFREY K. RIFFER, State Bar No. 87016
2 [email protected]
10345 W. Olympic Blvd.
3 Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: 310.746.4400
4 Facsimile: 310.746.4499
5 Attorneys for Defendant David Miscavige
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
9
10
ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN GARTSIDE LLP
Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499
VALERIE HANEY, CASE No. 19STCV21210

11
Plaintiff, [Assigned for All Purposes to:
12
Los Angeles, California 90064
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet, Dept. 50]

v.
13 SPECIALLY-APPEARING
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY DEFENDANT DAVID MISCAVIGE’S
14 INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TECHNOLOGY CENTER; AND DAVID TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
15 MISCAVIGE; AND DOES 1-25, AND COMPLAINT AND TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF SERVICE AS
16 Defendants. FRAUDULENT; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
17 DECLARATIONS OF WARREN
MCSHANE, LEWIS MIRANDA AND
18 LYNN FARNY
19 Date: March 10, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
20 Dept.: 50
21 RESERVATION ID: 604191141122
22 [Request for Judicial Notice filed
concurrently herewith; [Proposed] Order
23 lodged concurrently herewith]
24 Action Filed: June 18, 2019
Trial Date: Not Set
25
26
27
28
1291334
SPECIALLY-APPEARING DEFENDANT DAVID MISCAVIGE’S NOTICE OF
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS, & STRIKE POS AS FRAUDLENT
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 10, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon
3 thereafter as counsel shall be heard, in Department 50 of the Superior Court for the
4 State of California for the County of Los Angeles, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los
5 Angeles, California, 90012, Defendant David Miscavige, will specially appear and
6 move the Court for an order quashing the purported service of the summons and
7 complaint on Mr. Miscavige and striking Plaintiff’s fraudulent Proof of Service (the
8 “Motion”).
9 The Motion is made under the authority of Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10 on
10 the ground that Mr. Miscavige was never served with the summons and complaint
11 and that Plaintiff’s Proof of Service as to Mr. Miscavige is fraudulent.
12 The Motion is made upon this Notice, the attached memorandum of points and
13 authorities, the Request for Judicial Notice filed contemporaneously, the
14 Declarations of Warren McShane, Lewis Miranda, and Lynn R. Farny, all pleadings
15 and documents on file in this action, such further papers and authorities as may be
16 filed in support hereof, and oral argument as may be presented at the hearing on the
17 Motion.
18
DATED: November 20, 2019 ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN
19
GARTSIDE LLP
20
21 By:
JEFFREY K. RIFFER
22
Attorneys for Defendant David Miscavige
23
24
25
26
27
28
1291334
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Page
2
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5
3
II. PROOF OF SERVICE IS FRAUDULENT ........................................................... 7
4
III. PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE IS FRAUDULENT ............... 9
5
IV. PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH MAILING REQUIREMENTS .......... 10
6
V. THIS MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD BE GRANTED ..................................... 11
7
VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 12
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1291334 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2 Page(s)
3 Cases
4 Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court,

242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015) .................................................................................... 11
5
City Breeze, LLC v. Shahi,
6
No. B259117, 2016 WL 6236422 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2016) ............................. 6, 8
7
Kappel v. Bartlett,
8 200 Cal. App. 3d 1457 (1988).................................................................................... 12
9 Lebel v. Mai,
210 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (2012) .................................................................................... 9
10
11 People v. Hill,
17 Cal. 4th 800 (1998) ................................................................................................. 6
12
Renoir v. Redstar Corp.,

13 123 Cal. App. 4th 1145 (2004) .................................................................................. 11
14 Summers v. McClanahan,
15 140 Cal. App. 4th 403 (2006) .................................................................................... 11
16 Statutes
17 Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20 (a) .............................................................................. 10
18 Code of Civil Procedure §415.20(b) ...................................................................... 9, 10, 11
19 Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10(a)(1)........................................................................... 11
20
Other Authorities
21
California Rule of Court 3.110(b) ................................................................................ 5, 6
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1291334 4
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Mr. David Miscavige, the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion and
4 the Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center (another defendant),
5 brings this motion to quash service of the summons and complaint and to strike
6 Plaintiff’s proof of service as a fraud upon the court.
7 Plaintiff’s purported Proof of Service on Mr. Miscavige is based on provable
8 lies. The process server claims that he attempted service on specific dates and at
9 specific times, but surveillance footage of the building and the sworn declaration of
10 the receptionist on duty at all of the times noted establish that the process server’s
11 claims are completely fabricated. In fact, the process server did not enter the
12 building at any time on three of the four days that he claims, and on the one day that
13 he did enter the building, at a different time than that sworn to on the Proof of
14 Service, he did not attempt to serve Mr. Miscavige.
15 Plaintiff’s fraudulent proof of service is just her most recent stunt aimed at
16 generating media attention and harassing Mr. Miscavige.
17 Plaintiff alleges no facts that Mr. Miscavige engaged in any wrongdoing. But,
18 by naming Mr. Miscavige as a defendant, Plaintiff could tell the media that she sued
19 the leader of the religion, in an effort to ensure that the allegations were widely
20 disseminated.
21 This lawsuit was brought to generate media attention as leverage. Plaintiff
22 Valerie Haney, a one-time member of Scientology’s Sea Organization (“Sea Org”) —
23 the religious order of the Scientology religion — originally filed her Complaint as
24 “Jane Doe,” claiming that her identity should not be made public. But the use of a
25 pseudonym was just the beginning of Haney’s campaign to generate publicity for her
26 salacious allegations in an attempt to harass Defendants:
27 ► Ms. Haney’s original “Jane Doe” complaint disclosed her name on pg. 22,
28
1291334 5
1 fn. 22 – so the “Jane Doe” designation on the caption was just a mirage.
2 ► Ms. Haney widely distributed her initial Complaint to the media the day
3 she filed it. Subsequently, she waited 121 days to allegedly serve Mr. Miscavige -- in
4 violation of Rule of Court 3.110(b), which requires service in 60 days -- so she could
5 attempt to milk the delayed service for more media attention before having to prove
6 her claims in court.
7 ► Ms. Haney filed an amended complaint where she voluntarily disclosed
8 her name, further proving that the “Jane Doe” designation in her original complaint
9 was a publicity stunt.
10 ► Ms. Haney never considered her identity or her anti-Scientology

11 allegations secret – she had previously and repeatedly gone on television with them,
12 where she disclosed her name and likeness. Her “Jane Doe” modesty in this case was
13 just for show.
14 Plaintiff’s Delay in Service. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on June 18, 2019.
15 Plaintiff did not purport to serve Mr. Miscavige for another 121 days, in
16 violation of California Rule of Court, Rule 3.110(b) (“The complaint must be served on
17 all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with
18 the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.”).
19 When Plaintiff did purport to serve Mr. Miscavige, they did so through a
20 fraudulent (described in detail below) Proof of Service, by a process server (Robert
21 Hall) whose testimony regarding service a Los Angeles Superior Court judge (Hon.
22 William F. Fahey) has found to be “evasive and not credible.” See City Breeze, LLC v.
23 Shahi, No. B259117, 2016 WL 6236422, at *2-3 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2016). 1
24 / / /
25
26 The Court should take judicial notice of the unpublished opinion in City Breeze. See
1
27 People v. Hill, 17 Cal. 4th 800, 847-48 (1998) (taking judicial notice of unpublished
opinion citing same prosecutor for prosecutorial misconduct in a separate case); see
28 also Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A.
1291334 6
1 Plaintiff’s fraudulent purported Proof of Service on Mr. Miscavige in Los
2 Angeles occurred when it was widely known that Mr. Miscavige was officiating an
3 annual religious convocation in the United Kingdom, attended by thousands of
4 Scientologists. Following the bogus service, Plaintiff again alerted the media to the
5 claim of service on Mr. Miscavige, in order to gin up more false stories about Mr.
6 Miscavige and this lawsuit.
7 Plaintiff’s misconduct continued. On October 25, 2019, the Court (Hon. Jon R.
8 Takasugi) determined that this case was erroneously filed as a Personal Injury
9 matter and ordered the action referred for review and reassignment to an
10 Independent Calendar Court. Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. B. Judge
11 Takasugi ordered Plaintiff’s counsel “to give notice to all interested parties
12 forthwith.” Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s counsel didn’t provide notice “forthwith”
13 or ever, see Declaration of Warren McShane (“McShane Decl.”), ¶ 6, and the Court’s
14 docket reflects no evidence of any attempt to give notice.
15 II. PROOF OF SERVICE IS FRAUDULENT
16 On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff electronically filed a Proof of Service of
17 Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint stating under penalty of perjury that Mr.
18 Miscavige was served on October 17. See RJN, Ex. C.
19 According to Plaintiff’s “proof of service,” Mr. Miscavige was served by
20 substitute service on October 17, 2019 at 10:20 a.m. at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard,
21 Los Angeles, CA 90028. See id.
22 The proof of service states that Robert Hall, a registered process server, served
23 the summons, complaint and other documents on “John Doe” “Security,” a male in his
24 60s. Id.
25 The proof of service purports to bear Hall’s “signature” stating “under penalty
26 of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
27 correct.” Id.
28
1291334 7
1 Hall’s purported substitute service of Mr. Miscavige on October 17, 2019 is a
2 complete fabrication.
3 Lewis Miranda is the lobby receptionist for the building at 6331 Hollywood
4 Blvd. in Los Angeles. See Declaration of Lewis Miranda (“Miranda Decl.”), ¶ 2. He
5 was stationed at the lobby at the time of the purported substitute service on October
6 17. Id. ¶ 10. The Church maintains digital archive video recordings from cameras
7 that have views of the building entrance that capture video images of all persons
8 entering and leaving 6331 Hollywood Blvd. See Declaration of Lynn Farny (“Farny
9 Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-4. The archive footage for October 17 was carefully reviewed. Id. ¶ 5.
10 The sworn declaration of Mr. Miranda and the video archive recordings
11 maintained by the Church show that Hall never approached or entered the building
12 at 6331 Hollywood Blvd. on October 17. No process server came into the building on
13 that date. Miranda Decl., ¶ 10.
14 No process server (or anyone else) said that he or she had documents for Mr.
15 Miscavige. Id. ¶ 10. Hall never talked to the receptionist on October 17. Id. And
16 Hall never delivered any documents to anyone else at 6331 Hollywood Blvd. on the
17 purported date of substitute service. Id.
18 As noted above, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge (Hon. William F. Fahey)
19 has already found that Hall’s testimony under oath regarding service was “evasive
20 and not credible.” See City Breeze, LLC v. Shahi, No. B259117, 2016 WL 6236422, at
21 *2-3 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2016) (“The [trial] court found that the process server,
22 [Robert] Hall, was evasive and not credible, and declined to give his testimony any
23 weight.”).
24 The Court of Appeal in City Breeze affirmed the trial court order setting aside
25 a default judgment due to Hall’s fraudulent proof of service; Hall’s behavior was so
26 improper that the party who hired Hall did not challenge, on appeal, the trial court’s
27 finding of Hall’s fraud. See id. at *2-4, *7.
28
1291334 8
1 Plaintiff’s proof of substitute service on Mr. Miscavige is a fraud on the court.
2 III. PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE IS FRAUDULENT
3 When a summons is served on an individual defendant, the law requires a
4 reasonably diligent effort at personal service before “substituted service” may be
5 made. See Code of Civil Procedure §415.20(b); see also Lebel v. Mai, 210 Cal. App.
6 4th 1154, 1164 (2012) (“Substituted service is valid only if a good faith, reasonable
7 effort at personal service … is first attempted.”).
8 Generally, reasonable diligence requires three or four separate attempts to

9 personally serve a defendant on different dates and times. Plaintiff filed a
10 Declaration of Due Diligence that purports to show that Hall made three prior
11 attempts to personally serve Mr. Miscavige on October 7, October 10 and October 15
12 before substitute service was supposedly accomplished on October 17, 2019. RJN,
13 Ex. D.
14 The sworn declarations of Mr. Farny and Mr. Miranda, together with the
15 archive video footage where personal service was supposedly attempted, 2 prove that
16 the “facts” in Hall’s sworn Declaration of Due Diligence are lies:
17 ► Contrary to Hall’s declaration, Hall never entered 6331 Hollywood Blvd.
18 on October 7, October 15, or October 17, 2019. Miranda Decl., ¶¶ 7, 9-10; Farny
19 Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.
20 ► Hall did enter the 6331 Hollywood Blvd. building on one of the dates
21 referenced in his Declaration, viz., October 10, 2019 at 11:50 a.m. (not at 10:37 a.m.
22 as falsely stated in Hall’s proof of service for Mr. Miscavige). At 11:50 a.m., he told
23 Mr. Miranda, the receptionist, that he “had papers to serve on Church of Scientology
24 International . . . He placed several documents on [the security guard’s] desk and
25 went out the door.” Miranda Decl., ¶ 8. He left papers marked for corporate
26 Defendants only, declining to serve the registered agents for service of process for the
27
The digital archive for each of the days in question can be made available to the
2
28 Court and counsel upon request, subject to an appropriate protective order.

1291334 9
1 corporate entities and serving corporate entities that do not reside there. Id.
2 ► Hall never asked for or mentioned Mr. Miscavige on the only day he
3 appeared at the 6331 Hollywood Blvd. building and never appeared on any of the
4 days or times of purported attempted personal service or substitute service. Miranda
5 Decl., ¶¶ 7-10; Farny Decl., ¶¶ 6-7. [Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20 (a) states in
6 pertinent part as follows: “When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons
7 and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of
8 age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof.”] (emphasis added).

9 ► Hall never left any summons or other documents directed specifically to
10 Mr. Miscavige. Miranda Decl., ¶¶ 8 and 10.
11 In summary, Plaintiff never made any attempt to personally serve Mr.

12 Miscavige. There was no due diligence. Hall’s Declaration of Due Diligence is a
13 fraud on the court. The purported substitute service on October 17 does not subject
14 Mr. Miscavige to the court’s jurisdiction.
15 IV. PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH MAILING REQUIREMENTS
16 Hall’s Proof of Service asserts that a declaration of mailing is attached. RJN,
17 Ex. C. This statement is false. No declaration of mailing was attached to the Proof of
18 Service, and no declaration of mailing was filed with the Court. See id. The Proof of
19 Service is thus deficient.
20 Additionally, while the Proof of Service states that Hall mailed copies of the
21 documents “to the person to be served at the place where copies were left,” no such
22 mailing was ever received. See RJN, Ex. C; McShane Decl., ¶ 5. The fact that the
23 package was never received, when considered in light of all of the other evidence
24 submitted herein, creates a reasonable inference that the documents were never
25 mailed. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the mailing requirements of Code of Civil
26 Procedure § 415.20(b).
27
28
1291334 10
1 V. THIS MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD BE GRANTED
2 “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within
3 any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice
4 of motion for one or more of the following purposes: To quash service of summons on
5 the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” Code of Civil
6 Procedure § 418.10(a)(1).
7 The service of process was supposedly mailed to Mr. Miscavige on October 17.
8 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), the effective date of service is October 27,
9 ten days later. Since this motion was filed before November 26, the motion is timely.
10 “[C]ompliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to

11 establish that court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant.” Lebel, 210 Cal. App. 4th
12 at 1160 (citing Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1439 (1994)).
13 “When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground
14 of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of
15 jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’”
16 Summers v. McClanahan, 140 Cal. App. 4th 403, 413 (2006) (quoting Dill, 24 Cal.
17 App. 4th at 1439-40); see also Lebel, 210 Cal. App. 4th at 1163 (“plaintiff bore the
18 burden of showing facts requisite to a valid service”).
19 “[S]ervice of summons is not effective and the court does not acquire
20 jurisdiction of the party unless the statutory requirements for service of summons
21 are met.” Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607, 612
22 (2015) (quoting Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison, 125 Cal. App. 3d 436, 443 (1981)).
23 “Knowledge by a defendant of a plaintiff’s action does not satisfy the requirement of
24 adequate service of a summons and complaint.” Renoir v. Redstar Corp., 123 Cal.
25 App. 4th 1145, 1153 (2004) (citations omitted).
26 / / /
27 / / /
28
1291334 11
1 The Court does not acquire jurisdiction when service is asserted, but did not
2 take place. See Kappel v. Bartlett, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1457, 1466-67 (1988) (citing
3 Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Serv., 162 Cal. App. 3d 1236, 1251 (1984)).
4 VI. CONCLUSION
5 Mr. Miscavige respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion to Quash
6 and strike the Plaintiff’s Proof of Service as a fraud on the Court.
7
DATED: November 20, 2019 ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN
8
GARTSIDE LLP
9
10 By:
JEFFREY K. RIFFER
11
Attorneys for Defendant David Miscavige
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1291334 12
2 [email protected]
Telephone: 310.746.4400
4 Facsimile: 310.746.4499
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10 VALERIE HANEY, CASE No. 19STCV21210

11 Plaintiff, [Assigned for All Purposes to:

12 v.
DECLARATION OF WARREN
13 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MCSHANE IN SUPPORT OF

INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS SPECIALLY-APPEARING
14 TECHNOLOGY CENTER; AND DAVID DEFENDANT DAVID MISCAVIGE’S
MISCAVIGE; AND DOES 1-25, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
15 TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Defendants. AND COMPLAINT AND TO STRIKE
16 PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF SERVICE AS
FRAUDULENT
17
Date: March 10, 2020
18 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 50
19
RESERVATION ID: 604191141122
20
Action Filed: June 18, 2019
21 Trial Date: Not Set
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1301942v1
13
DECLARATION OF WARREN MCSHANE
1 DECLARATION OF WARREN MCSHANE
2 I, Warren McShane, declare as follows:
3 1. I make the following statements of my own personal knowledge, and if
4 called to testify thereto, I could and would do so competently.
5 2. In March 1983, I joined the staff of Religious Technology Center
6 (“RTC”). In August 1983, I became a Director and Officer of RTC and in 1993 I
7 became President. I am also the custodian of the RTC records and the Legal Officer
8 responsible for the creation and execution of all legal agreements and contracts both
9 internally and externally.
10 3. It has been Church policy since 1966 that all legal, tax, accountancy and
11 government mail is sent to the Legal Officer immediately upon receipt. Additionally,
12 the Legal Officer receives any mail that does not identify a sender. This type of mail
13 may not be forwarded to any executive or staff member unless first reviewed by the
14 Legal Officer. I have been carrying out this function in RTC since 1983.
15 4. I have read the Proof of Service of Summons, in which Robert Hall
16 claims to have served and mailed the Complaint; Civil Case Cover Sheet; Notice of
17 Jury Fee Deposit; First Amended Complaint; Notice of Confirmation of Filing (6);
18 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Application for Admission of

19 Marci Hamilton Pro Hac Vice; Notice on Hearing on Application for Admission of
20 Marci Hamilton Pro Hac Vice; [Proposed] Order Granting Admission of Marci
21 Hamilton Pro Hac Vice; Verification and Declaration of Marci A. Hamilton in
22 Support of Application Pro Hac Vice; Declaration of Robert W. Thompson ISO
23 Application for Admission of Jeffrey P. Fitz Pro Hac Vice; Memorandum of Points
24 and Authorities in Support of Application for Admission of Jeffrey P. Fitz Pro Hac
25 Vice; Notice of Hearing on Application for Admission of Jeffrey P. Fitz Pro Hac Vice;
26 [Proposed] Order Granting Admission of Jeffrey P. Fitz Pro Hac Vice; Verification
27 and Declaration of Jeffrey P. Fitz in Support of Application for Admission Pro Hac
28 Vice; Declaration of Robert W. Thompson ISO Application for Admission of Brian K.
1301942v1
14
DECLARATION OF WARREN MCSHANE
15
2 [email protected]
Telephone: 310.746.4400
4 Facsimile: 310.746.4499


12 v.
DECLARATION OF LEWIS MIRANDA

13 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY-

INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS APPEARING DEFENDANT DAVID
14 TECHNOLOGY CENTER; AND DAVID MISCAVIGE’S NOTICE OF MOTION
MISCAVIGE; AND DOES 1-25, AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE
15 OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
Defendants. AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF
16 OF SERVICE AS FRAUDLUENT
17 Date: March 10, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 Dept.: 50

Trial Date: Not Set
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1301947
16
1 DECLARATION OF LEWIS MIRANDA
2 I, Lewis Miranda, declare and state:
3 1. I make the following statements of my own personal knowledge, and if
4 called to testify thereto, I could and would do so competently.
5 2. I am the lobby receptionist for the building that has some offices of the
6 Church of Scientology International, located at 6331 Hollywood Blvd., in Los Angeles.
7 I have held this position for more than 10 years.
8 3. I have reviewed a Declaration of Diligence signed by one Robert Hall
9 and dated October 17, 2019, filed in the case Haney v. Church of Scientology
10 International, et al. (“Declaration”) attached hereto as Exhibit A. On the item, “Party

11 to be served:” the Declaration lists “David Miscavige, 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Los
12 Angeles, CA 90028.” The Declaration contains false statements of facts as set forth
13 below.
14 4. The Declaration asserts, under “4. Details of diligence:” the following:
15 10/17/2019 10:20 AM Defendant not in. Security did not want to
16 accept documents. Left with his knowledge.
17 10/15/2019 9:20 AM Defendant not in.
18 10/10/2019 10:37 AM Defendant not in.

19 10/07/2019 4:20 PM Subject not in. The security is very evasive
20 with their answers. It is believed that Mr.
21 Miscavige lives on this property and
22 defendant Masterson is an employee. No
23 known home address is known for either
24 defendants. [sic]
25 5. None of these “Details of diligence” are accurate.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1301947
17
1 6. I was present as the lobby receptionist at 6331 Hollywood Blvd. on each
2 of the times and dates set forth in Paragraph 4 above at the front entrance of 6331
3 Hollywood Blvd. The building is clearly marked “6331” in large brass letters, a
4 photograph of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B. The Church maintains
5 stationary digital video cameras positioned above the entrance to the lobby and in
6 the alcove at the outside of the entrance door that captures video images of all
7 persons entering and leaving the building 24 hours per day. It would be impossible
8 for any person not to be seen on video if he or she actually came into the building.
9 7. On October 7, 2019, I was stationed at the front entrance at 4:20 p.m.
10 No process server came into the building and no other person came to the building
11 asking for David Miscavige. No process server came to the building at that time, nor
12 at any other time on October 7th.

13 8. On October 10, 2019, a man came into the building at 11:43 a.m. and
14 approached the reception desk. He did not provide his name. He said he had papers
15 to serve on the Church of Scientology International. I informed the man that such
16 papers cannot be served to this address, but must go to the registered agent for
17 service of process. The man insisted that he was instructed to leave the papers here.
18 I told him that I am not authorized to receive legal papers, and that they must go to
19 the registered agent for service. The man asked the address of the registered agent. I
20 told him to check on the Secretary of State website, that the legal office that sent him
21 here can easily look that up and send him there. The man insisted that he had to
22 deliver the documents here, placed several documents on my desk and went out the
23 door. After he left, I saw that the papers he left were not only for the Church of
24 Scientology International, as the process server had stated. There were also legal
25 papers for Religious Technology Center and the Church of Scientology Celebrity
26 Center. The process server never mentioned Mr. David Miscavige. The process
27 server did not ask for Mr. Miscavige and I did not state that he was “not in” as is
28 (falsely) represented in the Declaration. The process server nevertheless left papers
1301947
18
19
EXHIBIT A
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/23/2019 11:11 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Williams,Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT B
2 [email protected]
Telephone: 310.746.4400
4 Facsimile: 310.746.4499


12 v.
DECLARATION OF LYNN R. FARNY

13 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY-

INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS APPEARING DEFENDANT DAVID
14 TECHNOLOGY CENTER; AND DAVID MISCAVIGE’S NOTICE OF MOTION
MISCAVIGE; AND DOES 1-25, AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE
15 OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
Defendants. AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF
16 OF SERVICE AS FRAUDULENT
17 Date: March 10, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 Dept.: 50

Trial Date: Not Set
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1301943
20
DECLARATION OF LYNN R. FARNY
$&#!H#H '!!H$ H$"(H
H
H H G;;H$ H)?;GH-.,9)?.H)@H0=99<E@H
H H):HA6.H<?><?)A.H%.,?.A)?GH0=?HA6.H6B?,6H</H%,7.;A<9<5G
H ;A.?;)A7<;)9H%H H6)D.H6.9-HA67@H><@7A7<;H@7;,.HB;.H</HH H):HA6.H
H -.@75;)A.-HB@A<-7);H</H$.,<?-@H0=?H%H H6)D.H>.?@<;)9H8;<E9.-5.H</HA6.H0*,A@[email protected]
H 2?A6H6.?.7;H.F,.>AH)@HA<HA6<@.H@A)A.-H<;H7;2?:)A7<;H);-H+.97./H);-H)@HA<HA6<@.HH):H
H 7;0=?:.-H);-H+.97.D.HA6.:HA<H+.HA?B.H /H,)99.-H)@H)HE7A;.@@HH,<B9-H);-HE<B9-H
H ,<:>.A.;A9GHA.@A74HA<HA6.H:)AA.?@H@A)A.-H6.?.7;H
%H:)7;A)7;@H@.,B?7AGH,):.?)@H)AH H<99GE<<-H<B9.D)?-H2?HA6.

H @)1AGH);-H@.,B?7AGH</HA6.H>.<>9.HE6<H,<:.HA<HA6.H+B79-7;5H);-HA6.H@A?..A@H<[email protected]
H >?<>.?AGH
H &E<H</HA6.H,):.?)@H6)D.HD7.E@H</HA6.H H<99GE<<-H<C9.D)?-
H .;A?);,.H #;.H7@H)H@A)A7<;)?GH@.,B?7AGH,):.?)HA6)AH7@H><7;A.-H-7?.,A9GH)AHA6.H3<;AH
H -.@8H3<:H<D.?HA6.H6.)-H</HA6.H?.,.>A7<;7@AH);-H7AH-7@>9)[email protected]?.,.>A7<;H-.@8H);-H
H @B??<B;-7;5H)?.) H &6.H@.,<;-H7@H)H@.,B?7AGH,):.?)HA6)AH7@H7::.-7)A.9GH<[email protected]
H 3<;AH-<<?H7;HA6.H)9,<D.H);-H7AH-7@>9)[email protected].?H</HA6.H.;A?);,.H);[email protected])98H<;H
H <99GE<<-H<C9.D)?-H ;GH>.?@<;HE6<H.;[email protected] H<99GE<<-H<B9.D)?-H7@H
H D7@7+9.H<;HA6.H@.,B?7AGH,):.?)H0=<A)5.H</[email protected]<H,):.?)@ H
H H-757A)9H)?,67D.H</HA6.H@.,B?7AGH,):.?)H2<A)5.H7@H:)7;A)7;.-H+GH%

H AG>7,)99GH2?H
H-)G@H9<;5.?H7/HA6.H2<A)5.H7@H;..-.-H0=?H);<A6.?H>B?><@.H @C,6H)@HA<H
H )@@7@AH9)EH.;0=?,.:.;A H &67@H-757A)9H)?,67D.H7@H8.>AH7;HA6.H;<?:)9H,<[email protected]</H+B@7;.@@ H
H H>.?@<;)99GH?.D7.E.-HA6.H@.,B?7AGH,):.?)H0=<A)5.H2?H#,A<+.?HH
H
H );-HH
H);-H6)-H)HA.):HB;-.?H:GH-7?.,A7<;H-<HA6.H@):.HA<H)@@C?.H),,B?),GH</H
H A6.H?.D7.E H <?HA6<@.H-)G@H%H6)@H)H,<;A7;B<B@HD7-.<H?.,<?-H</H.),6H-)GH3<:H
H :7-;756AHA<H:7-;756A H
H !<H<;.H)AA.:>A7;5HA<H@.?D.H9.5)9H>)>.?@H)>>.)?.-H<;HA6.HD7-.<H2<A)5.
H 2?H#,A<+.?HH
H)AH
H> : H#,A<+.?H
H
H)AH
H) : H#,A<+.?HH
H)AH

A A%4A69A"';6&)9AAA%;AA%4 ;;%'/)(A%:A?/0&0;AA%9)A:'9))5:/6;:A6*A
A ;/)A:)'<90;@A'%4)9%A-6;%.)A%8896?04%;)3@A)=)9@AA:)'65(:A-9A;/)A,=)A405<;):A
A &)-9)A%5(A,=)A405<;):A%*;)9A;/)A+7336>05.A;04):A65A;/)A-336>05.A(%;):A"';6&)9AA
A A%;AA84 A"';6&)9AAA%;AA%
4A "';6&)9AAA%;AA%4A%5(A
A "';6&)9AAA%;AA%4
A !6A65)A%;;)48;05.A;6A:)9=)A3).%3A8%8)9:A%88)%9)(A65A;/)A=0()6A-6;%.)
A %;A%5@A;04)A65A"';6&)9AAA69AAA
A "5A"';6&)9AAA%;AA%4
A;/)A=0()6A:/6>:A%A4%5A;/)A %5
A %;;)48;05.A;6A/%5(A8%8)9:A;6A)>0:A 09%5(%A%A9)')8;0650:;A%;AA633@>66(A
A 6<3)=%9(
A ;;%'/)(A%:A?/0&0;AA0:A%A:'9))5A:/6;A6*A:)'<90;@A'%4)9%A-6;%.)A%;AA
A %
4A65A"';6&)9AA
A 5A4@A9)=0)>A6*A;/)A:)'<90;@A'%4)9%A-6;%.)AA:8)'0,'%33@A3662)(A-9A;/)
A %5
A $/)A %5A(0(A56;A%88)%9A65A;/)A-6;%.)A%;A%5@A6;/)9A;04)A65A"';6&)9AA A
A $/)A %5A(0(A56;A%88)%9A65A;/)A-6;%.)A%;A%5@A;04)A65A"';6&)9AAA69AA A
A A()'3%9)A<5()9A8)5%3;@A6*A8)91<9@A<5()9A;/)A3%>:A6*A;/)A#;%;)A6*A%30+7950%A
A ;/%;A;/)A-9).605.A0:A;9<)A%5(A'699)'; A
?)'<;)(A!6=)4&)9AA A%;A6:A5.)3):A %30-950%A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
22

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
Doe v. Church of Scientology, et al.
2 Case No. 19STCV21210
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4 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
5 address is 10345 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064.
6 On November 20, 2019, I served true copies of the following document(s)

described as SPECIALLY-APPEARING DEFENDANT DAVID MISCAVIGE’S
7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF SERVICE AS
8 FRAUDULENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATIONS OF WARREN MCSHANE, LEWIS MIRANDA AND LYNN
9 FARNY on the interested parties in this action as follows:
10
Robert W. Thompson, Esq.

Kristen A. Vierhaus, Esq.

11 THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P C.
700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
12
Burlingame, CA 94010
Tel: (650) 513-6111

13 Fax: (650) 513-6071
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or
15 package provided by the overnight service carrier and addressed to the persons at the
addresses listed in the Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection
16 and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight
service carrier or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by the
17 overnight service carrier to receive documents.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
19
Executed on November 20, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.
20
21
22 Melanie G. Yuen
23
24
25
26
27
28
1291334 13
Journal Technologies Court Portal
Make a Reservation
JANE DOE vs CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, et al.
Case Number: 19STCV21210 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Other Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death
Date Filed: 2019-06-18 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 50
Reservation
Case Name:
JANE DOE vs CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY Case Number:
INTERNATIONAL, et al. 19STCV21210
Type: Status:
Motion to Quash Service of Summons RESERVED
Filing Party: Location:
David Miscavige (Defendant) Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 50
Date/Time: Number of Motions:
03/10/2020 8:30 AM 1
Reservation ID: Con rmation Code:

604191141122 CR-DASEHIXX9HIQ7AEFY
Fees
Description Fee Qty 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
Payment
Amount: Type:
$446.96 AmericanExpress
Account Number: Authorization:
XXXX6005 273432
 Print Receipt + Reserve Another Hearing
Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved.

Haney v. Scientology: Miscavige Motion To Quash

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haney v. Scientology: Miscavige Motion To Quash

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haney v. Scientology: Miscavige Motion To Quash

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the case about?

What is the case about?

What motion is being filed?

What motion is being filed?

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/20/2019 04:23 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Soto,Deputy Clerk

1 ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN GARTSIDE LLP

5 Attorneys for Defendant David Miscavige

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

VALERIE HANEY, CASE No. 19STCV21210

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet, Dept. 50]

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

11 and that Plaintiff’s Proof of Service as to Mr. Miscavige is fraudulent.

13 authorities, the Request for Judicial Notice filed contemporaneously, the

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

4 Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court,

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

Renoir v. Redstar Corp.,

15 140 Cal. App. 4th 403 (2006) .................................................................................... 11

17 Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20 (a) .............................................................................. 10

18 Code of Civil Procedure §415.20(b) ...................................................................... 9, 10, 11

19 Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10(a)(1)........................................................................... 11

4 the Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center (another defendant),

6 Plaintiff’s proof of service as a fraud upon the court.

7 Plaintiff’s purported Proof of Service on Mr. Miscavige is based on provable

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

14 Service, he did not attempt to serve Mr. Miscavige.

21 This lawsuit was brought to generate media attention as leverage. Plaintiff

22 Valerie Haney, a one-time member of Scientology’s Sea Organization (“Sea Org”) —

26 salacious allegations in an attempt to harass Defendants:

6 her claims in court.

7 ► Ms. Haney filed an amended complaint where she voluntarily disclosed

10 ► Ms. Haney never considered her identity or her anti-Scientology

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

13 just for show.

18 the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.”).

20 fraudulent (described in detail below) Proof of Service, by a process server (Robert

3 annual religious convocation in the United Kingdom, attended by thousands of

6 Miscavige and this lawsuit.

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

14 docket reflects no evidence of any attempt to give notice.

15 II. PROOF OF SERVICE IS FRAUDULENT

16 On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff electronically filed a Proof of Service of

18 Miscavige was served on October 17. See RJN, Ex. C.

19 According to Plaintiff’s “proof of service,” Mr. Miscavige was served by

21 Los Angeles, CA 90028. See id.

4 Blvd. in Los Angeles. See Declaration of Lewis Miranda (“Miranda Decl.”), ¶ 2. He

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

13 that date. Miranda Decl., ¶ 10.

17 purported date of substitute service. Id.

27 finding of Hall’s fraud. See id. at *2-4, *7.

2 III. PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE IS FRAUDULENT

3 When a summons is served on an individual defendant, the law requires a

4 reasonably diligent effort at personal service before “substituted service” may be

7 effort at personal service … is first attempted.”).

8 Generally, reasonable diligence requires three or four separate attempts to

Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

11 attempts to personally serve Mr. Miscavige on October 7, October 10 and October 15

16 the “facts” in Hall’s sworn Declaration of Due Diligence are lies:

27 finding of Hall’s fraud. See id. at 2-4, 7.