-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
1/92
No. 15-0966
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, ED BRYAN, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, DAVID J. LUBOW, AND MONTY DRAKE,
Petitioners,
v.
MONIQUE RATHBUN,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review from the
Third Court of Appeals at Austin, Texas
No. 03-14-00199-CV
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Douglas W. AlexanderState Bar No. 00992350
Nicholas Bacarisse
State Bar No. [email protected]
ALEXANDER DUBOSE
JEFFERSON & TOWNSEND LLP 515 Congress Avenue
Suite 2350
Austin, Texas 78701-3562Telephone: (512) 482-9300
Facsimile: (512) 482-9303
Thomas S. LeatherburyState Bar No. 12095275
Marc A. Fuller
State Bar No. [email protected]
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
Trammell Crow Center2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 3700
Dallas, Texas 75201Telephone: (214) 220-7792
Facsimile: (214) 999-7792
George H. Spencer, Jr.State Bar No. 18921001
CLEMENS & SPENCER
112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1300San Antonio, Texas 78205
Telephone: (210) 227-7121
Facsimile: (210) 227-0732
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
FILED
15-0966
2/19/2016 7:38:14 AM
tex-9194603
SUPREME COURT OF TE
BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE,
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
2/92
2
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
PETITIONERS: Steven Gregory Sloat, Ed Bryan, Church ofScientology International, David J. Lubow,
and Monty Drake
Counsel for Petitioner Church of
Scientology International before
this Court:
Douglas W. AlexanderState Bar No. 00992350
[email protected] Nicholas Bacarisse
State Bar No. 24073872
ALEXANDER DUBOSE JEFFERSON& TOWNSEND LLP
515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350Austin, Texas 78701-3562
Telephone: (512) 482-9300Facsimile: (512) 482-9303
Trial and Appellate Counsel for
Petitioner Church of Scientology
International:
Thomas S. Leatherbury
State Bar No. [email protected]
Marc A. FullerState Bar No. 24032210
[email protected] & ELKINS LLPTrammell Crow Center
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 220-7792
Facsimile: (214) 999-7792
George H. Spencer, Jr.
State Bar No. [email protected]
CLEMENS & SPENCER 112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1300
San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531Telephone: (210) 227-7121
Facsimile: (210) 227-0732
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
3/92
3
Ricardo G. Cedillo
State Bar No. [email protected] J. Huron
State Bar No. [email protected]
Les J. Strieber IIIState Bar No. 19398000
[email protected] DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, I NC.
McCombs Plaza, Suite 500755 E. Mulberry Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78212Telephone: (210) 822-6666
Facsimile: (210) 822-1151
Trial and Appellate Counsel for
Petitioner Steven Gregory Sloat:
Jonathan H. Hull
State Bar No. 10253350
[email protected] EGAN BURRUS
401 Main Plaza, Suite 200 New Braunfels, Texas 78130
Telephone: (830) 625-8026
Facsimile: (830) 625-4433
Trial and Appellate Counsel for
Petitioner Monty Drake:
Gary D. Sarles
State Bar No. [email protected]. Paul Dunagan
State Bar No. [email protected]
SARLES & OUIMET 370 Founders Square
900 Jackson StreetDallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: (214) 573-6300
Facsimile: (214) 573-6306
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
4/92
4
Trial and Appellate Counsel for
Petitioner David J. Lubow:
Stephanie S. Bascon
State Bar No. [email protected] OFFICE OF STEPHANIE S.
BASCON, PLLC297 W. San Antonio Street
New Braunfels, Texas 78730Telephone: (830) 625-2940
Facsimile: (830) 221-3441
Trial and Appellate Counsel for
Petitioner Ed Bryan:
Jonathan H. HullState Bar No. 10253350
[email protected] EGAN BURRUS
401 Main Plaza, Suite 200 New Braunfels, Texas 78130
Telephone: (830) 625-8026
Facsimile: (830) 625-4433
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
5/92
5
RESPONDENT: Monique Rathbun (pro se)
501 SunsetIngleside on the Bay, Texas [email protected]
Former Trial and Appellate
Counsel for Respondent:(Motion for Withdrawal of
Counsel for Respondent granted by the Court February 12, 2016)
Ray B. Jeffrey
State Bar No. [email protected]
A. Dannette Mitchell (deceased)State Bar No. 24039061
JEFFREY & MITCHELL, P. C.2631 Bulverde Road, Suite 105
Bulverde, Texas 78163Telephone: (830) 438-8935
Facsimile: (830) 438-4958
Marc F. Wiegand
State Bar No. 21431300
[email protected] WIEGAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
434 N. Loop 1604 West, Suite 2201San Antonio, Texas 78232
Telephone: (210) 998-3289
Facsimile: (210) 998-3179
Elliott S. Cappuccio
State Bar No. [email protected] Sara Hyman
State Bar No. [email protected]
Etan Z. TeppermanState Bar No. 24088514
[email protected], CAPPUCCIO, PULLEN& BENSON, LLP
2161 N.W. Military Hwy., #400
San Antonio, Texas 78213Telephone: (210) 222-9494
Facsimile: (210) 892-1610
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
6/92
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................................................. 2
Index of Authorities .................................................................................................. 8
Statement of the Case .............................................................................................. 12
Statement of Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 13
Issues Presented ...................................................................................................... 15
Reasons to Grant ..................................................................................................... 16
Statement of Facts ................................................................................................... 19
A. The Parties .......................................................................................... 19
B. CSI retains Drake and Sloat to investigate reported trademark
infringement by the Rathbuns and thefts involving Marty. TCPA§27.005(b)(2) (covering a “party’s exercise of…the right to
petition”). ............................................................................................ 20
C. Defendants Bryan, Lubow, and other Scientologists protest andcreate a series of videos criticizing and countering Marty’s anti-
Scientology activities and his efforts to establish an independent
church under the name “Scientology.” ............................................... 23
D. Plaintiff’s claims include allegations of conduct that the trial
court struck for lack of evidence and in which Defendants deny
involvement, which would not be covered by the TCPA. ................. 26
Summary of Argument ........................................................................................... 27
Argument................................................................................................................. 28
I. The court of appeals erred in holding that, at the TCPA’s first step, acourt must “favor[] the conclusion that [the plaintiff’s] claims are not
covered.” ....................................................................................................... 28
II. The court of appeals erred in failing to differentiate among the differentclaims and various defendants. ..................................................................... 31
Conclusion and Prayer ............................................................................................ 36
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
7/92
7
Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 38
Certificate of Compliance ....................................................................................... 39
Appendix
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
8/92
8
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bilbrey v. Williams,
02-13-00332-CV, 2015 WL 1120921 (Tex. App.—Fort WorthMar. 12, 2015, no pet.) ........................................................................................ 13
Cheniere Energy, Inc. v. Lotfi,449 S.W.3d 210 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) .......... 13, 17, 29
City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Invs., LLC ,
214 Cal.App.4th 358 (2013) ............................................................................... 28
Cruz v. Van Sickle,
452 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) .............................. 34, 35
Deaver v. Desai, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 14-14-00683-CV, 2015 WL 9275751 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 3, 2015, n.p.h.) .............................................. 14
Entravision Commc’n Corp. v. Salinas, No. 13-13-00702-CV, 2015 WL 9434695 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi Sept. 30, 2015, no pet.) ........................................................................... 13
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman,
464 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, pet. filed) ....................................... 13
Graham v. Roder ,5 Tex. 141 (1849) ................................................................................................ 30
Hicks v. Grp. & Pension Adm’rs, Inc.,
473 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, no pet.) ............................. 14
I-10 Colony, Inc. v. Lee, No. 01-14-00465-CV, 2015 WL 1869467 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Apr. 23, 2015, no pet.) ....................................................................... 14
Jardin v. Marklund ,
431 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) ................... 13
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
9/92
9
Johnson-Todd v. Morgan, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 09-15-00210-CV, 2015 WL 6521546 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont Oct. 29, 2015, n.p.h.) ............................................................. 14
KBMT Operating Co. v. Toledo,
434 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014, pet. granted) ............................ 13
In re Lipsky,
411 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, orig. proceeding) ................... 14
In re Lipsky,460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) ............................................................13, 16, 28, 34
MacGregor Med. Ass’n v. Campbell,
985 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. 1998)................................................................................. 30
Newspaper Holdings, Inc. v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, Ltd.,
416 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied) ........... 29, 30
Neyland v. Thompson, No. 03-13-00643-CV, 2015 WL 1612155 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr.
7, 2015, no pet.) .................................................................................................. 29
Reyna v. Baldridge,
No. 04-14-00740-CV, 2015 WL 4273265 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio July 15, 2015, no pet.) .......................................................................... 13
San Jacinto Title Servs. Corp. of Corpus Christi, LLC v. Kingsley
Props., LP,452 S.W.3d 343 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2013 pet. denied) ...................... 14
Serafine v. Blunt ,
466 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.) ........................14, 16, 18, 29
Shipp v. Malouf ,439 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) .............................. 34, 35
Sierra Club v. Andrews Cty.,418 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013), rev’d on othergrounds, 463 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2015) ......................................................... 13, 14
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
10/92
10
Sloat v. Rathbun, No. 03-14-00199-CV, 2015 WL 6830927 (Tex. App.—Austin
Nov. 6, 2015, pet. filed) ................... 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Souza v. Tessmer ,
No. 04-15-00153-CV, 2015 WL 4932567 (Tex. App.—SanAntonio Aug. 19, 2015, no pet.) ......................................................................... 14
Tatum v. Hersh, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 05-14-01318-CV, 2015 WL 9583494 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Dec. 30, 2015, n.p.h.) ...................................................... 13, 17, 29
Tervita, LLC v. Sutterfield ,
No. 05-15-00469-CV, 2015 WL 9257035 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec.18, 2015, n.p.h.) ............................................................................................ 14, 18
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,
133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) .............................................................................. 30
Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill,177 Cal.App.4th 1049 (2009) ............................................................................. 32
Whisenhunt v. Lippincott ,
416 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013), rev’d on othergrounds, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) ............................................................... 13
Whisenhunt v. Lippincott ,474 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no. pet.) ..................................... 14
Statutes
26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3) ................................................................................................ 19
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.001 ................................................................... 32
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.001(4)–(6) ....................................................... 29
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.002 ................................................................... 28
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.003 .................................................12, 17, 27, 31
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM CODE §27.005 ..................................... 13, 15, 16, 25, 28, 31
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.006(a) ........................................................ 30, 32
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
11/92
11
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.010 ................................................................... 15
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.011(b) .............................................................. 28
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
12/92
12
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case: Monique Rathbun sued Petitioners—four individual
Defendants and Defendant Church of ScientologyInternational—alleging intentional infliction of emotionaldistress, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private
facts and intrusion on seclusion, and tortious interference withcontract. Defendants moved to dismiss the action under the
Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) because the actionwas “based on, relate[d] to, or … in response to” Defendants’
“exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or rightof association.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.003(a).
Trial Court: Hon. Dib Waldrip, 207th Judicial District Court, Comal
County, Texas.
Trial Court’s
Disposition:
Judge Waldrip denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thecourt concluded that the TCPA’s bodily-injury and
commercial-transaction exemptions rendered the Actinapplicable, and awarded attorney’s fees against
Defendants. App. 2.
Court of Appeals: Third Court of Appeals, Austin; Justice Field joined by JusticePemberton and Justice Puryear. Sloat v. Rathbun, No. 03-14-00199-CV, 2015 WL 6830927 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 6,
2015, pet. filed).
Court of Appeals’
Disposition:
Affirmed trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss; reversedaward of attorney’s fees. “[V]iew[ing]the pleadings in the
light most favorable to [the non-movant] Rathbun; i.e.,favoring the conclusion that her claims [were] not
predicated on protected expression,” id. *3, and withoutdistinguishing among the various Defendants or the various
causes of action, held that Defendants “failed to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence” “thatthe TCPA applies to this case,” id. *9 (emphasis added).
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
13/92
13
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has conflicts jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal for the
following reasons:
• Two courts of appeals (Houston First and Austin) have held that, in making
the step-one determination of whether the TCPA applies, §27.005(b), the
pleadings and affidavits should be “view[ed] … in the light most favorable
to the non-movant.”1 Conversely, all other courts to consider the issue have
applied a “neutral, plain-language” review. The Dallas court did so explicitly;2
the others have done so implicitly.3
1
Cheniere Energy, Inc. v. Lotfi, 449 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (emphasis added); Sloat v. Rathbun, No. 03-14-00199-CV, 2015 WL 6830927, at *3 (Tex.
App.—Austin Nov. 6, 2015, pet. filed) (same).
2 Tatum v. Hersh, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 05-14-01318-CV, 2015 WL 9583494, at *5 n.4 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Dec. 30, 2015, n.p.h.).
3 See, e.g., Entravision Commc’n Corp. v. Salinas, No. 13-13-00702-CV, 2015 WL 9434695, at
*4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 30, 2015, no pet.) (applying a neutral, “de novoreview”); Reyna v. Baldridge, No. 04-14-00740-CV, 2015 WL 4273265, at *2 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio July 15, 2015, no pet.) (same); Bilbrey v. Williams, No. 02-13-00332-CV, 2015 WL
1120921, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 12, 2015, no pet.) (same); ExxonMobil Pipeline Co.v. Coleman, 464 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, pet. filed) (same); KBMT Operating
Co. v. Toledo, 434 S.W.3d 276, 282 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014, pet. granted), disapproved on
other grounds by In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015); Jardin v. Marklund , 431 S.W.3d 765,770 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (same); Sierra Club v. Andrews Cty., 418
S.W.3d 711, 715 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (same), rev’d on other grounds, 463 S.W.3d 867
(Tex. 2015) (per curiam); Whisenhunt v. Lippincott , 416 S.W.3d 689, 695–96 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2013) (same), rev’d on other grounds, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015).
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
14/92
14
• The courts of appeals4 —including the Austin court5 —have consistently
conducted a claim-by-claim analysis of the TCPA’s application, to decide
whether the Act applies in cases where the non-movant’s lawsuit is based on
both covered and non-covered conduct. Contrary to this precedent and its own
prior opinions, the court of appeals held that any allegations of non-covered
conduct preclude the Act’s application to the entire suit, without
differentiation between claims or defendants. Rathbun *7–8.
4 Tervita, LLC v. Sutterfield , ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 05-15-00469-CV, 2015 WL 9257035, at *2(Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 18, 2015, n.p.h.) (considering whether “each cause of action pleaded by”
the plaintiff is covered by the TCPA); see also Deaver v. Desai, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 14-14-
00683-CV, 2015 WL 9275751, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 3, 2015, n.p.h.)(finding TCPA applied to some claims but not others); Johnson-Todd v. Morgan, ___ S.W.3d ___,
No. 09-15-00210-CV, 2015 WL 6521546, at *4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 29, 2015, n.p.h.)
(separately considering TCPA’s application to different claims); Souza v. Tessmer , No. 04-15-
00153-CV, 2015 WL 4932567, at *1 & n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 19, 2015, no pet.)
(considering TCPA motion related only to a single cause of action); Whisenhunt v. Lippincott , 474S.W.3d 30, 38–39 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no. pet.) (noting trial court’s grant of movant’s
TCPA motion only as to specific claims); I-10 Colony, Inc. v. Lee, No. 01-14-00465-CV, 2015WL 1869467, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 23, 2015, no pet.) (considering
TCPA’s application to plaintiff’s fraud claim, but not her partition claim); Hicks v. Grp. & Pension
Adm’rs, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 518, 530 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, no pet.) (consideringTCPA’s application to specific claims); Sierra Club, 418 S.W.3d at 716 (requiring movant to prove
that “both” of the plaintiff’s claims were covered by TCPA (emphasis added)); In re Lipsky, 411
S.W.3d 530, 542–43 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, orig. proceeding) (separately considering thedifferent movants and claims at step one), denying mandamus, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015); cf.
Serafine v. Blunt , 466 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.) (Pemberton, J.,
concurring) (“In distinguishing between these alternative protected and unprotected factual basesunderlying the Blunts’ tortious-interference claim, the Court implicitly resolves, and correctly so,the so-called ‘mixed-claim’ issue under the TCPA....”); San Jacinto Title Servs. Corp. of Corpus
Christi, LLC v. Kingsley Props., LP, 452 S.W.3d 343, 350 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2013 pet.
denied) (referring to the TCPA’s “expansive” definition of “legal action”).
5 See Serafine, 466 S.W.3d at 360 (considering whether different factual theories are covered byTCPA).
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
15/92
15
ISSUES PRESENTED
Briefed Issues:
1. In making the step-one determination of whether, under
TCPA §27.005(b), the movant has “show[n] by a preponderance of the evidence”
that “the legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to the party’s exercise
of: (1) the right of free speech; (2) the right to petition; or (3) the right of association,”
should the court
•
“favor[] the conclusion that [the plaintiff’s] claims are not predicated on
protected expression,” as the court of appeals held?
or
• view the evidence in the “neutral” manner used by other appellate courts?
2. Did the court of appeals err by holding that allegations of non-covered
conduct made generally against all defendants render the TCPA inapplicable to all
defendants and claims in a lawsuit?
Unbriefed Issues:
3. Did the trial court err in holding that the “commercial transaction”
exemption to the TCPA, §27.010(b), applies here?
4. Did the trial court err in holding that the “bodily injury” exemption to
the TCPA, §27.010(c), applies here?
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
16/92
16
REASONS TO GRANT
In In re Lipsky, this Court analyzed step two of the TCPA’s burden-shifting
analysis: whether the non-movant has “‘establish[ed] by clear and specific evidence
a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question.’” 460 S.W.3d
579, 592 (Tex. 2015) (quoting TCPA §27.005(c)).
This petition asks the Court to analyze step one of the inquiry: whether the
movant has “show[n] by a preponderance of the evidence” that “the legal action is
based on, relates to, or is in response to the party’s exercise of: (1) the right of free
speech; (2) the right to petition; or (3) the right of association.” TCPA §27.005(b).
This standard has proved elusive. Rathbun *3 (“As for a trial court’s
determination of what the factual bases for a ‘legal action’ are, the standards
governing our review are less clear.”). As one of the panel members observed in
another case:
The Act is rather murky regarding the factual aspects of this
‘preponderance of the evidence’ inquiry and how appellate courts areto review any such determinations by trial courts.... I can only hope that
some justice of the Texas Supreme Court might be listening and find
this writing of some assistance in this or another of the TCPA cases thatare beginning to crowd its docket.
Serafine, 466 S.W.3d at 369, 394 (Pemberton, J., concurring).
The TCPA is a crucial tool for protecting First Amendment rights. But the
Act’s step-one “preponderance-of-the-evidence” inquiry has confused and divided
intermediate courts of appeals; it will continue to do so until this Court intervenes.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
17/92
17
To illustrate, both the Houston First and Austin courts of appeals “view the
pleadings and the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
movant.” Cheniere Energy, Inc. v. Lotfi, 449 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (emphasis added); Rathbun *3 (going beyond
Cheniere Energy and holding that movant must show that all conduct on which suit
is based is covered).
In contrast, recently the Dallas Court of Appeals, while acknowledging
Cheniere’s and Rathbun’s deferential approach, applied a “neutral, plain-language
review.” Tatum v. Hersh, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 05-14-01318-CV, 2015 WL
9583494, at *5 n.4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 30, 2015, n.p.h.) (emphasis added).
Numerous other cases implicitly take the same tack. Statement of Jurisdiction, at 13
n.3.
No less important, this case presents the question of how and when the Act
applies to “mixed claims”: lawsuits or causes of action that are based on covered
activity, even if some subpart of the case involves activity not covered by the Act.
At step one, the Act directs the court to determine whether a “legal action” is
based on covered conduct. TCPA §27.003(a)–(b). Prior to the Austin Court’s
decision, every Texas court to consider the question—including the Austin Court—
had understood this language to require, at a minimum, a claim-by-claim analysis of
the Act’s application. The most recent of these decisions makes this clear:
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
18/92
18
Under the TCPA, a “legal action” includes not only a “lawsuit” but alsoa “cause of action.” TCPA §27.001(6). In reviewing the trial court’s
ruling, we consider whether [movant] has established that each causeof action pleaded by [nonmovant] “is based on, relates to, or is in
response to”[movant’s] exercise of its right to petition or right ofassociation.” TCPA §27.003(a).
Tervita, LLC v. Sutterfield , No. 05-15-00469-CV, 2015 WL 9257035, *2 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Dec. 18, 2015, n.p.h.) (emphasis added) (dismissing one claim and
portion of another, and remanding remaining causes of actions to trial court); see
also Serafine, 466 S.W.3d at 360 (analyzing at step one by factual theory).
Pejoratively characterizing Defendants’ “attempted use of the TCPA as a
shield to protect the type of conduct alleged in this case,” Rathbun *8 n.10
(emphasis added), the Austin Court parted ways with Dallas and its own Serafine
precedent. But coverage under the Act does not equate to protection in the sense of
immunity from suit; rather, it shifts to the plaintiff the burden to produce evidence
supporting her claims. Thus, the court of appeals’ acknowledgment that Plaintiff’s
suit was based in part on covered conduct, id. *4–6 (pre-litigation and filmmaking
activities), should have satisfied the Act’s first step and shifted the burden.
Instead, the court concluded that because a portion of the petition alleged non-
covered conduct, the Act was wholly inapplicable. Id. *7–8. In doing so, the court
never confronted the analytically distinct legal and factual circumstances among the
defendants or the causes of action addressed to each. Id.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
19/92
19
This Court should grant review to resolve these conflicts with respect to this
relatively young, but already much-litigated, Act.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Parties
Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) oversees the ecclesiastical
activities of Scientology churches. CR1:78. The IRS recognizes it as a tax-exempt
church under 26 U.S.C. §170(b), whose purpose and activities are, as statutorily
mandated, “exclusively” charitable and religious. 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3);
CR10:1223–24. Religious Technology Center (“RTC,” not a petitioner in this
proceeding), also recognized as a tax-exempt church, owns the Scientology
trademarks (in furtherance of its “exclusively” religious purpose and activities) and
is the ecclesiastical authority overseeing the orthodox application of the faith.
CR1:78. RTC delegates to CSI responsibility for investigating and prosecuting
misuse of Scientology trademarks and service marks. CR1:148.
Monty Drake is a non-Scientologist private investigator. Gregory Sloat is a
non-Scientologist former Deputy U.S. Marshal who was employed by a private
investigator in this case. Ed Bryan and David Lubow are Scientologists who
protested, filmed, and produced documentaries about the actions of Marty Rathbun
and his wife, Monique.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
20/92
20
Plaintiff Monique Rathbun was never a Scientologist. She is the wife of a
former Church official, Marty Rathbun, who was removed from his position in 2003,
and left the Church a year later. In 2009 he began an aggressive and defamatory
public attack in all media on the Church and its leadership in an attempt to create a
schism and establish his own version of “Independent Scientology,” using
Scientology intellectual property. Plaintiff joined him in these efforts. Her lawsuit is
based upon acts undertaken by Defendants to counter the vicious public attacks,
principally by her husband, and to protect the Church’s intellectual property rights.
B. CSI retains Drake and Sloat to investigate reported trademark
infringement by the Rathbuns and thefts involving Marty. TCPA
§27.005(b)(2) (covering a “party’s exercise of…the right to
petition”).
In 2009, CSI learned of a Craigslist posting by Marty, which promised:
“Scientology counseling: thoroughly trained on all levels of Scientology spiritual
counseling. Reasonable rates.” CR1:149. Marty also created a blog offering
“Independent Scientology” services. Id . It is undisputed that Marty never acquired
rights to the Scientology trademarks and was never authorized to use them.
CR10:1206; CR1:18.
“Scientology spiritual counseling” refers to a religious practice called
“auditing,” which seeks to elevate participants to higher states of spiritual awareness.
Id . Scientology auditing, too, is protected through trademarks held by RTC. Only
licensed ministers, groups or churches may use the name “Scientology” or deliver
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
21/92
21
these services. Marty’s advertisement and unlicensed “Independent Scientology”
services infringed on RTC’s trademarks. CR1:149-150; 152-153.
Marty’s wife, Monique, also performed auditing services out of the Rathbuns’
home/office. She, like Marty, used an e-meter, a Scientology religious artifact that
is reserved, by trademark and scripture, for use only by licensed and authorized
ministers. CR1:149, 150; RR3:173–177.
In response to Marty’s Craigslist and blog posts, CSI’s general counsel
retained Drake to investigate the reported infringements. Drake has investigated
hundreds of cases involving intellectual-property violations in the United States and
abroad. CR1:152-153; CR2:298. A licensed private investigator, Drake did what he
customarily does in such cases: lawful surveillance, including taking still
photographs and videos. CR2:299–300.
The Rathbuns used their house to conduct infringing activities. Drake rented
a house across the cul-de-sac from the Rathbuns’ house in Ingleside-on-the-Bay,
Texas. Drake believed continual film surveillance of the home’s exterior was likely
to expose the Rathbuns’ unauthorized infringement of Scientology’s trademarks.
CR26:3142–43. Anything the camera could see, a person could also see from the
street. CR26:3143. Drake never directed surveillance inside the Rathbuns’
home/office. Id . Drake occasionally followed Marty’s car to determine with whom
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
22/92
22
he was meeting. CR2:300. The Rathbuns were not aware of Drake’s presence until
2012. CR1:39.
Concurrently, the Church’s lawyers performed legal research, reviewed work
product, and drafted a complaint regarding the Rathbuns’ trademark infringement
that Drake was investigating. CR33:4007–08.
In April 2010, as a result of his monitoring activity, Drake reported to Church
counsel that John Brousseau had arrived at the Rathbuns’ home/office. Days before,
Brousseau had stolen from RTC computer files containing proprietary information.
RTC reported Brousseau’s theft and his subsequent meeting with Marty to law
enforcement. CR10:1204-1205.
Shortly thereafter, Marty published a blog post encouraging Church staff to
steal Church documents and records. He stated he would “personally guarantee
[them] protection.” CR1:153. A few weeks later, Daniel Montalvo, a staff member
at Bridge Publications, Inc., the Church’s publishing facility in Los Angeles,
furtively removed five hard drives containing proprietary and confidential
information from that facility. Marty was in the car when another ex-Scientologist
picked up Montalvo and the stolen goods. CR1:153–54. Bridge filed a complaint
with the Los Angeles Police regarding this theft, and the resulting report referenced
Marty’s involvement. CR25:3016.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
23/92
23
Drake’s surveillance continued until late 2012. CR1:39. In December 2012,
the Rathbuns moved to Bulverde, Texas. RR3:178. In early 2013, the Church’s
counsel hired another licensed investigator who in turn retained non-Scientologist
Sloat. Sloat installed three low-resolution cameras on property he rented adjacent to
the Rathbuns’ Bulverde house to photograph the driveway and nearby roadway. Like
Drake, Sloat was trying to document Marty’s administration of trademark-infringing
“practice[s] similar to Scientology.” CR2:302-03.
C.
Defendants Bryan, Lubow, and other Scientologists protest andcreate a series of videos criticizing and countering Marty’s anti-
Scientology activities and his efforts to establish an independent
church under the name “Scientology.”
In 2009, Marty began a world-wide campaign against his former church and
its leadership. He posted videos to that end on the Internet, wrote and self-published
books, and maintained an Internet blog that attacked his former church and its
ecclesiastical leader, David Miscavige. CR1:151-52. Rathbun posted a document
entitled “31 Factors,” purportedly modeled on Martin Luther’s “95 Theses.” Id. He
compared Mr. Miscavige to Hitler, and called for the destruction of the Church of
Scientology. CR1:152; CR2:203; CR27:3223, 3270-75, 3278-81. Rathbun also
appeared on national and international television programs, repeating his attacks
against the Church and its leadership, and sat for interviews with international,
national, and local newspapers. CR1:150-51.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
24/92
24
As a direct result of Marty’s actions, in early 2011, several Scientologists,
including John Allender, Joanne Wheaton, Richard Hirst and Defendants Bryan and
Lubow, resolved to document, protest, and communicate to Scientologists and to the
public by video and film Marty’s efforts to establish a rival “Independent Church of
Scientology.” They also sought to expose and refute Marty’s attacks on the Church.
CR2:281.
Lubow, Allender and Warlick embarked to protest at Marty’s home/office and
film a documentary about him. The film would utilize footage of protesters outside
the premises. The working title for the documentary was “The Story of a Squirrel.”
Id. “Squirrel” is a Scientology term depicting a person who delivers altered and
unauthorized versions of Scientology services. CR1:150. The protesters adopted the
name “Squirrel Busters.” CR1:110, 155; 2:287.
The Squirrel Busters began their protests and filming outside the Rathbuns’
home/office during April 2011, and continued intermittently until September 2011.
During the filming, the Squirrel Busters had numerous verbal encounters with
Rathbun and plaintiff in public areas, in the course of which they debated, often in
mutually argumentative terms, Rathbun’s anti-Scientology activities. CR2:290.
Plaintiff testified about the Squirrel Busters “doing their videos with pictures
and, you know, unflattering stuff about us and saying stuff…[t]heir response was
that they were doing a documentary. They would be out there with these cue
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
25/92
25
cards…and they would have scripts of whatever it was that they wanted to harass us
about….” RR3:126–27. Plaintiff’s counsel then played a passage on which the
Squirrel Busters, in his words, “were getting these scripts and they were reading
them on camera in front of your house” including “negative things about you.” Id.
at 127. Plaintiff also testified that the Squirrel Busters passed out magazines to local
residents containing their message. RR3:147. She also alleged they “would approach
us in a golf cart with up to six cameras trained on us as they hurled insults and rude
questions relating to Scientology.” CR48:5556 (emphasis added). Plaintiff claims
the Squirrel Busters were active whenever the Rathbuns left their house, CR38:4506,
and that it went on for 199 days, RR3:201.
Defendants do not deny the presence of the Squirrel Busters outside of
Plaintiff’s home/office. In fact they assert it was their right to protest there in
response to Marty Rathbun’s years-long attacks on their Church. The Squirrel
Busters’ protests and filming activities were religiously motivated and were
peaceful, if at times heated. CR2:280-281, 294; 26:3150. Their activities, which
Plaintiff conceded never involved assault or trespassing, RR3:200, included attempts
to question the Rathbuns about Scientology and their anti-Scientology activities.
CR48:5556. They produced documentary videos which were uploaded to YouTube.
CR26:3156.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
26/92
26
D. Plaintiff’s claims include allegations of conduct that the trial court
struck for lack of evidence and in which Defendants deny
involvement, which would not be covered by the TCPA.
In addition to allegations about investigators and Squirrel Busters, which
involve “the right to petition” and “the right to free speech” under TCPA §27.005(b),
Monique alleged conduct not covered by the TCPA, in which Defendants denied
involvement. CR33:4011; CR38:4480. These allegations were stricken by the
trial court, yet nevertheless relied on by the court of appeals as forming the
basis of Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
Thus, Plaintiff alleged that “Defendants” sent her a sex toy at her job and that
“Defendants” sent flowers to a female co-worker along with a “romantic” message
purporting to be from Plaintiff. CR1:39. Plaintiff admitted to speculating about who
sent either the sex toy or the flowers. RR3:207. Accordingly, the trial court struck
those allegations from her affidavit. CR38:4506–07. Plaintiff also alleged that
“Scientology websites have published…false claims that [Plaintiff is] a sex pervert”
or “a man who has had a secret sex-change operation.” CR1:39. After Plaintiff
produced no evidence of such websites, the trial court likewise struck those
allegations from her affidavit. CR55:6317.
The trial court ultimately denied all of the Defendants’ TCPA motions on the
grounds that the Act’s commercial-transaction and bodily-injury exemptions
rendered the Act inapplicable. App. 2. The court of appeals did not reach that issue.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
27/92
27
Instead, “favoring the conclusion that [Plaintiff’s] claims [were] not predicated on
protected expression,” and without distinguishing among the various Defendants or
the various causes of action, it held that Defendants “failed to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence” “that the TCPA applies to this case,” Rathbun
*3, *9.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This Court should resolve the split among the courts of appeals about what
standard governs analysis of the pleadings and evidence under the first step of the
TCPA’s burden-shifting procedure. The Dallas Court of Appeals’ “neutral” standard
honors the statute’s plain language: at step one, the “legal action” should be liberally
viewed as “based on, relate[d] to, or...in response to the [movant’s] exercise of”
enumerated rights. TCPA §27.003(a). In contrast, the approach articulated by the
court of appeals here—under which courts “favor[] the conclusion that [the non-
movant’s] claims are not predicated on protected expression”—would gut the Act
by allowing a plaintiff to plead around its application. This case illustrates the point.
The court of appeals’ flawed approach led it to rely upon allegations in the Plaintiff’s
complaint that the trial court found to be so unsubstantiated that it struck them from
the record.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
28/92
28
The Court should also grant review to correct the court of appeals’ refusal to
differentiate among the claims and Defendants. Lumping Defendants together and
applying the court of appeals’ hyper-deferential standard of review collectively to
all causes of action ensures that Defendants—against whom Plaintiff cannot even
articulate a legitimate claim—remain subject to continuing defense of a suit that the
Act bars.
ARGUMENT
Because this case involves diverse defendants and mixed claims, it is the ideal
vehicle for clarifying the analysis under step one of the TCPA’s burden-shifting
procedure for determining whether a “legal action” should be dismissed. See
TCPA §§27.005(b) (step one: movant’s burden), (c) (step two: non-movant’s
burden), (d) (step three: movant’s burden).
I.
The court of appeals erred in holding that, at the TCPA’s first step, acourt must “favor[] the conclusion that [the plaintiff’s] claims are not
covered.”
“The TCPA’s purpose is to identify and summarily dispose of lawsuits
designed only to chill First Amendment rights, not to dismiss meritorious lawsuits.”
Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 589. The TCPA accomplishes this goal through its three-step
burden-shifting procedure, which strikes a balance between defendants’ First
Amendment guarantee and plaintiffs’ ability to seek compensation for demonstrable
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
29/92
29
injuries. TCPA §27.002. The TCPA must be “construed liberally to effectuate [this]
purpose.” Id. §27.011(b).
The Act’s core is steps two and three: at those phases, the court must
determine whether a lawsuit implicating First Amendment activities is sufficiently
meritorious to proceed. Step one, by contrast, asks merely whether this analysis
should be performed at all. Cf. City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Invs., LLC , 214
Cal.App.4th 358, 371 (2013) (“The first step only determines whether [the Act’s]
procedural protection applies; the second step...addresses whether there is sufficient
merit to the claims at issue to allow the litigation to proceed.”).
The statute incorporates capacious definitions of covered conduct.
See §27.001(4)–(6); see also Serafine, 466 S.W.3d at 357 n.1 (referring to TCPA
definitions as “expansive”); id. at 375–76 (Pemberton, J., concurring) (referring to
range of conduct covered by TCPA as “vast[]”). Several courts of appeals have thus
applied a neutral approach or otherwise assumed the truth of the movant’s facts at
step one. See, e.g., Tatum, 2015 WL 9583494, at *8; Serafine, 466 S.W.3d at 360
(accepting truth of movant’s evidence at step one); Neyland v. Thompson, No. 03-
13-00643-CV, 2015 WL 1612155, at *4 n.6 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 7, 2015, no
pet.) (same); see also Statement of Jurisdiction.
In contrast, two courts—including the court of appeals here—have applied an
indulgent standard favoring the non-movant. That standard originated in Cheniere
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
30/92
30
Energy, which held that a court at step one must “view the pleadings and evidence
in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” 449 S.W.3d at 214.
Cheniere Energy’s standard of review was wrong for three reasons. First, it
relied solely on Newspaper Holdings, Inc. v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, Ltd.,
which involved only the step-two burden. 416 S.W.3d 71, 80–81 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied).
Second, Newspaper Holdings adopted a standard utilized in reviewing
jurisdictional pleas, id., which has its roots in a long-standing policy favoring
jurisdiction, Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex.
2004); see also Graham v. Roder , 5 Tex. 141, 141 (1849) (“In doubtful cases all
intendments are in favor of the jurisdiction.”). Moreover, Miranda concerned
whether a fact was uncontested, and therefore binding pre-trial, or was contested,
and therefore reserved for the fact-finder’s post-trial determination. 133 S.W.3d at
227–28. A court considering a TCPA motion, however, cannot wait for coverage
disputes to be resolved at trial without rendering impotent the Act’s protections.
Coverage must be resolved at step one.
Third, and most fundamentally, Cheniere Energy’s approach would negate
the TCPA by making it standard practice for plaintiffs to evade the Act’s protections:
by including any allegation of conduct not covered by the TCPA, plaintiffs would
ensure that their lawsuit was insulated from a TCPA challenge. The Legislature did
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
31/92
31
not intend such a result. Cf. MacGregor Med. Ass’n v. Campbell, 985 S.W.2d 38, 40
(Tex. 1998) (plaintiff cannot evade application of Medical Liability and Insurance
Improvement Act by pleading claim under DTPA).
The indulgent approach contradicts the Act’s plain language, which requires
courts to consider not only the plaintiff’s allegations but also “supporting and
opposing affidavits.” TCPA §27.006(a) (emphasis added). If the legislature had
meant for courts to consider only plaintiffs’ facts, it would not have directed courts
to consider both parties’ evidence; it cannot have meant for courts to consider but
automatically disregard movants’ evidence.
Furthermore, the court of appeals exacerbated Cheniere Energy’s error. It not
only viewed the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, it “favor[ed] the conclusion that
[Plaintiff’s] claims [we]re not predicated on protected expression.” Rathbun *3
(emphasis added).
This startling holding requires trial courts to ignore the Act’s command that
it be construed liberally. It in fact requires courts to assume that the Act doesn’t
apply and to accept as true any allegation that some part of the underlying conduct
was not covered by the TCPA. That interpretation thwarts the Act’s text and purpose.
II.
The court of appeals erred in failing to differentiate among the different
claims and various defendants.
Several anti-SLAPP motions were filed in this case. CR3:341 (CSI); CR3:337
(Drake); CR5:582 (Sloat and Bryan joining CSI); CR5:587 (Lubow). Though their
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
32/92
32
motions were heard together, each Defendant had a right to individual consideration.
TCPA §27.003(a); §27.005(b). Yet the court of appeals lumped all the Defendants
together, collectively referring to them as “the Scientology Defendants” more than
50 times, Rathbun *1–9, though Drake and Sloat are not even Scientologists.
Similarly, Monique asserted four causes of action. The Act’s broad definition
of “legal action” requires that the court consider the Act’s application as to each of
these causes of action. TCPA §27.001(6).
Until this case, the courts of appeals have uniformly analyzed whether each
cause of action is covered by the TCPA, refusing to hold that a whole lawsuit is or
is not covered by the Act. See supra at 16–17 (addressing Tervita and Serafine).
Disregarding the unbroken precedent recognizing the Act applies on a claim-by-
claim basis, the court of appeals held, in essence, that any allegation of non-covered
conduct overcomes evidence of covered conduct, precluding the TCPA’s application
as to all conduct, all claims, and all defendants. Rathbun *8.
Monique’s suit against Drake illustrates the flaw in the court of appeals’
undifferentiated approach. Plaintiff alleges that Drake surveilled her home/office
from across the cul-de-sac. CR1:56. Her affidavit offers nothing more. CR48:5553.
Drake’s affidavit testified that his surveillance investigated Marty’s trademark
infringement and theft. CR2:299. As the statute required, TCPA §27.006(a), the trial
court considered and accepted this evidence. CR56:6420–21, 6430.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
33/92
33
Drake’s surveillance was pre-petition activity—based on Drake’s work, CSI
had prepared a trademark-infringement suit against Marty. Although CSI decided
against filing that suit, a criminal complaint was filed with law enforcement based
in part on information learned from Drake’s surveillance. See Tichinin v. City of
Morgan Hill, 177 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1068 (2009) (holding that California’s anti-
SLAPP statute covers non-communicative pre-litigation activity, even if suit is never
filed, because such activity “intrinsically facilitates the exercise of free speech”).
Under either Tervita’s or Serafine’s granulated approach to mixed claims, the suit
against Drake would have been deemed covered, and the burden would have shifted
to Plaintiff to attempt to establish a prima facie case against him.
While it acknowledged that Drake conducted pre-litigation activity, the court
of appeals ignored Plaintiff’s pleadings and affidavit to conclude that her “suit is not
based on the Scientology Defendants’ attempts to discover facts related to Marty
Rathbun’s alleged” trademark infringement. Rathbun *8. Rather, the court focused
on Plaintiff’s general allegations about harassment and her salacious, stricken
allegations about a sex toy. Id . *7–8. But Monique’s own lawyer referred to Drake’s
surveillance as a basis for her harassment claim. RR11:88–91.
By ignoring the specific evidence of covered conduct and focusing solely on
unspecific allegations of non-covered conduct, the court of appeals concluded that
Drake could not use the Act to defend against Monique’s suit. This was error.
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
34/92
34
Similarly, Monique pleaded that “the Squirrel Busters’ operations is an
important basis of this lawsuit,” CR10:1270, incorporating these allegations into
each of her claims, CR10:1274 – 75. Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel told the trial court
that the Squirrel Busters’ activities represented “a dramatic change in the level and
intensity of what [Plaintiff was] experiencing.” RR3:105. Plaintiff’s counsel later
emphasized that Plaintiff’s complaint encompasses “the whole campaign, pre-
Squirrel Busters, during Squirrel Busters, after Squirrel Busters.” RR12:225.
In determining whether the Act covered the Squirrel Busters’ activities, the
court of appeals ignored the evidence, including Monique’s admissions,
demonstrating that the Squirrel Busters’ regular presence outside the Rathbuns’
home/office, which indisputably contained elements of covered activity, was the
basis for much of the lawsuit. Rathbun *5–6. Instead, the court of appeals, using its
highly deferential standard, concluded that Monique’s lawsuit was based solely on
alleged conduct it considered non-covered, which Monique asserted generally
against all of the Defendants. Id. *6.
Importantly, the court of appeals held contrary to the Dallas Court. That court
has held that non-covered conduct cannot be separated from the covered context in
which it arose, even if the plaintiff sues only for the non-covered conduct. Shipp v.
Malouf , 439 S.W.3d 432, 438 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (“We agree
with Shipp that the entire communication—not just the allegedly defamatory
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
35/92
35
portion— and the surrounding circumstances must be considered in determining
whether the lawsuit relates to Shipp’s exercise of his right of free speech.” (emphasis
added)), disapproved on other grounds, Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579; see also Cruz v.
Van Sickle, 452 S.W.3d 503, 514 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (same). By
failing to view the non-covered conduct in the context of Defendants’ substantial
and undisputed covered activities, the Austin Court erred.
Perhaps most egregiously, the court of appeals zeroed-in on Plaintiff’s most
inflammatory allegation: that “the Scientology Defendants sent a sex toy to
[Plaintiff] at her workplace.” Rathbun *5. But this sex toy scenario was rank
speculation, and the trial court struck the allegation from her affidavit:
CR38:4506–07. The court of appeals’ conclusion thus relied on evidence the trial
court struck, while ignoring evidence the trial court credited regarding the Squirrel
Busters’ activities. CR38:4504–05.
In fact, the court of appeals went a step further, placing an additional burden,
unmoored in precedent or statute, on Defendants to explain how each of Plaintiff’s
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
36/92
36
allegations against them were covered by the statute. Rathbun *7 (faulting
Defendants for failing to “explain how” certain activities “constitute[d] conduct
covered by the TCPA”). Contra, Shipp, 439 S.W.3d at 438; Cruz, 452 S.W.3d at
514. This, too, was error.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Since its passage five years ago, the TCPA has perplexed courts,
commentators, and parties. This case reflects that confusion.
This Court should grant this petition to clarify the step-one analysis under the
TCPA; reverse in part the court of appeals’ judgment, hold that Monique Rathbun’s
claims are covered by the TCPA and no exemption applies, and remand to the court
of appeals for a determination of whether Rathbun met her step-two burden; or,
alternatively, reverse and remand to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Douglas W. Alexander
Douglas W. AlexanderState Bar No. 00992350
Nicholas Bacarisse
State Bar No. [email protected]
ALEXANDER DUBOSEJEFFERSON & TOWNSEND LLP
515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350Austin, Texas 78701-3562
Telephone: (512) 482-9300Facsimile: (512) 482-9303
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
37/92
37
Thomas S. LeatherburyState Bar No. [email protected]
Marc A. FullerState Bar No. 24032210
[email protected] & ELKINS LLP
Trammell Crow Center2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
Dallas, Texas 75201Telephone: (214) 220-7792
Facsimile: (214) 999-7792
George H. Spencer, Jr.State Bar No. 18921001
CLEMENS & SPENCER
112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1300San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531
Telephone: (210) 227-7121Facsimile: (210) 227-0732
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
38/92
38
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On February 19, 2016 I electronically filed this Petition for Review with the
Clerk of the Court using the eFile.TXCourts.gov electronic filing system, which will
send notification of such filing to the following (unless otherwise noted below).
Monique Rathbun501 Sunset
Ingleside on the Bay, Texas 78362
(served by e-mail and certified mail)
Respondent
Gary D. SarlesState Bar No. 17651100
O. Paul DunaganState Bar No. 06202700
[email protected] & OUIMET 370 Founders Square
900 Jackson StreetDallas, Texas 75202Telephone: (214) 573-6300
Facsimile: (214) 573-6306
Attorneys for Petitioner Monty Drake
Jonathan H. HullState Bar No. 10253350
Ashley B. Bowen
State Bar No. [email protected]
R EAGAN BURRUS401 Main Plaza, Suite 200
New Braunfels, Texas 78130Telephone: (830) 625-8026
Facsimile: (830) 625-4433
Attorneys for Petitioners
Steven Gregory Sloat and Ed Bryan
Stephanie S. Bascon
State Bar No. [email protected] OFFICE OF STEPHANIE S. BASCON, PLLC297 W. San Antonio Street
New Braunfels, Texas 78730
Telephone: (830) 625-2940
Facsimile: (830) 221-3441
Attorneys for Petitioner David J. Lubow
/s/ Douglas W. Alexander
Douglas W. Alexander
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
39/92
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
40/92
INDEX
Tab Item
1. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.003
2. Trial Court’s Order
3. Court of Appeals’ Opinion and Judgment
4. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.005
5.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.010
6.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.002
7.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.011
8.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.001
9. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & R EM. CODE §27.006
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
41/92
APPENDIX 1
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
42/92
§ 27.003. Motion to Dismiss, TX CIV PRAC & REM § 27.003
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated
Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 2. Trial, Judgment, and Appeal
Subtitle B. Trial Matters
Chapter 27. Actions Involving the Exercise of Certain Constitutional Rights (Refs & Annos)
V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 27.003
§ 27.003. Motion to Dismiss
Effective: June 17, 2011
Currentness
(a) If a legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to a party's exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or
right of association, that party may file a motion to dismiss the legal action.
(b) A motion to dismiss a legal action under this section must be filed not later than the 60th day after the date of service of the
legal action. The court may extend the time to file a motion under this section on a showing of good cause.
(c) Except as provided by Section 27.006(b), on the filing of a motion under this section, all discovery in the legal action is
suspended until the court has ruled on the motion to dismiss.
Credits
Added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 341 (H.B. 2973), § 2, eff. June 17, 2011.
Notes of Decisions (37)
V. T. C. A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 27.003, TX CIV PRAC & REM § 27.003
Current through the end of the 2015 Regular Session of the 84th Legislature
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=NF723FE55F715484FA2A00576DF33C780&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=l&cite=lk(TXCPD)+lk(TXCPR)&originatingDoc=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&refType=CM&sourceCite=V.T.C.A.%2c+Civil+Practice+%26+Remedies+Code+%c2%a7+27.003&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000170&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=N140D44624DCF4530AEFC6BE1C2C04BFD&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=ND2E654E47FF24F9CAF9A7B53902A3603&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=NAAE6AFF0B12B11E09F6ACC9C037C80CA&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=l&cite=lk(TXCPT2SUBTBC27R)&originatingDoc=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&refType=CM&sourceCite=V.T.C.A.%2c+Civil+Practice+%26+Remedies+Code+%c2%a7+27.003&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000170&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000170&cite=TXCPS27.006&originatingDoc=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&refType=SP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=l&pubNum=1077005&cite=UUID(IF7FE9CB0A2-AF11E08EE09-034349C81BB)&originatingDoc=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&refType=SL&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/NotesofDecisions?docGuid=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=NotesOfDecision&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/NotesofDecisions?docGuid=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=NotesOfDecision&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=l&pubNum=1077005&cite=UUID(IF7FE9CB0A2-AF11E08EE09-034349C81BB)&originatingDoc=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&refType=SL&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000170&cite=TXCPS27.006&originatingDoc=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&refType=SP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=l&cite=lk(TXCPT2SUBTBC27R)&originatingDoc=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&refType=CM&sourceCite=V.T.C.A.%2c+Civil+Practice+%26+Remedies+Code+%c2%a7+27.003&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000170&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=NAAE6AFF0B12B11E09F6ACC9C037C80CA&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=ND2E654E47FF24F9CAF9A7B53902A3603&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=N140D44624DCF4530AEFC6BE1C2C04BFD&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=l&cite=lk(TXCPD)+lk(TXCPR)&originatingDoc=ND2610A80B12B11E0BC41AF128715F8A6&refType=CM&sourceCite=V.T.C.A.%2c+Civil+Practice+%26+Remedies+Code+%c2%a7+27.003&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000170&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=NF723FE55F715484FA2A00576DF33C780&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
43/92
APPENDIX 2
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
44/92
1 5 0 N . S e g u i n , S u i t e 317
N e w B r a u n f e l s , T e x a s 78130
8 3 0 - 2 2 1 - 1 2 7 0
F a x 8 3 0 - 6 0 8 - 2 0 3 0
D I B WAL DRI P
P R E S I D I N G J U D G E
4 3 3 R D JU D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T
C O M A L C O U N T Y
C A U S E N O . C 2 0 1 3 - 1 0 8 2 B
M O N I Q U E R A T H B U N ,
P L A I N T I F F
D A V I D M I S C A V I G E , R E L I G I O U S
T E C H N O L O G Y C E N T E R , C H U R C H
O F
S C I E N T O L O G Y I N T E R N A T I O N A L ,
S T E V E N G R E G O R Y S L O A T , M O N T Y D R A K E ,
D A V E L U B O W A/K/A D A V I D J . L A B O W , A N D
E D B R Y A N ,
D E F E N D A N T S
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
2 : =
m
l
a
SI
S
I N T H E D I S T | C « C O U R T
2 0 7
T H
J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T
3 3
G 3
C O M A L C O U N T Y , T E X A S
A N T I - S L A P P M O T I O N S O F A L L D E F E N D A N T S F I N D I N G S O F F A C T A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
O F L A W R U L I N G
DENYING
A L L A N T I - S L A P P M O T I O N S T O D I S M I S S
F I N D I N G S O F
F A C T
1. D e f e n d a n t C h u r c h o f S c i e n t o l o g y I n t e r n a t i o n a l
( CSI ) ,
by a nd th rough i t s
a g e n t s o r c o n t r a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g D e f e n d a n t s D a v i d L u b o w , M o n t y D r a k e a n d G r e g S l o a t,
unde r took ex tens ive su rve i l l a nc e o f P l a in t i f f a nd he r husba nd ove r a c o l l e c t ive pe r iod o f
more tha n fou r years—possibly s ix . M on ty D r a ke a c tua l ly beg a n the inves t iga t ion o f
M a r k R a t h b u n i n 2 0 0 7 .
Se e
D e p o s i t i o n o f M o n t y D r a k e a t 5 2 : 1 6 - 1 9 . H e s t a r te d
P a g e 1 of
5
3753
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
45/92
i n v e s ti g a t in g M a r k R a t h b u n f o r p o t e n t i a l S c i e n t o l o g y t r a d e m a r k v i o l a t i o n s . See Affidavi t
o f M o n t y D r a k e f 7 . ' Sc ien to log i s t D a v id L ub ow ha s l ikew ise s t a t ed tha t he i s a p r iva t e
inves t iga to r a nd f i lmma ke r a nd w a s h i red by CSI ' s a t to rney E l l io t A be l son p r io r t o 2009
to inves t iga t e Mr . R a thbun in suppo r t o f p ro spec t ive l i t i ga t ion rega rd ing a l l eged
v io l a t ions by Mr . R a thbun o f in t e l l e c tua l p rope r ty r igh t s ow ned by C SI . Se e Affidavi t of
D a v i d L u b o w
Yh
3-4 .
2 . C e r t a in o f t he a c t iv i t i e s a bou t w h ic h P la in t i ff c om pla in s w e re c ondu c ted
b y p e r s o n s c a l l i n g t h e m s e l v e s t he S q u i r r e l B u s t e r s b e g i n n i n g i n A p r i l
2 0 1 1 .
D efenda n t
C SI a dmi t s t ha t i t p ro mp ted a nd spon so red the Squ i r re l B us t e r s .
Se e
A f f ida v i t o f A l l a n
C a r tw r igh t @
T[
23 . Squ i r re l B u s t e r R ic h a rd H i r s t ind ic a t e s t ha t h i s f ir st i nvo lv eme n t
c a me a f te r he w a s no t i f i ed o f t he p ro pos ed a c t iv i t i e s w he n he rec e ived a c a ll f rom a s t a f f
m e m b e r o f t h e C h u r c h o f S c i e n t o l o g y I n t e r n a t i o n a l ( D e f e n d a n t C S I ) .
Se e
Affidavi t of
R ic ha rd H i r s t @
[̂
5 . W a n t i n g to a ss i s t S c i e n t o l o g i s t s t o d o c u m e n t M a r k
Rathbun's
p r o v i s i o n o f ' s q u i r r e l ' S c i e n t o l o g y , C S I ' s L e g a l D i r e c t o r C a r t w r i g h t a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t
CSI pro vid ed f inanc ia l a nd lega l sup por t .
Se e
A f f ida v i t o f A l l a n C a r t w r ig h t @
Tf
2 3 .
3 . In h i s dec l a ra t ion f i l ed by D e f end a n t C S I , H i r s t a dm i t s t he Squ i r re l
Bus ters inst i ga te d th e fi rs t Ing lesid e on the Ba y con fron ta t io n on th e very f irst day a t
t he R a thb un s ' f ront doo r pu rp o r t ed l y t o c on duc t a t e c hn ic a l in sp ec t io n o f M a rk
R a t h b u n ' s p r o c e d u r e a s a S c i e n t o l o g y m i n i s t e r / a u d i t o r . Se e A f f ida v i t o f R ic h a rd H i r s t @
K 10 . Th i s in i t i a l Squ i r re l B us t e r even t w a s v ideo - t a ped a nd sh ow n in c our t d i sp l a y ing
num erou s Squ i r re l B us t e r s a t t he
R a t h b u n s *
doo r w ea r ing d i s t inc t ive p rovoc a t ive t - sh i r t s
po r t r a y ing M a rk R a thb un a s a squ i r re l w i th a r ed - s l a s hed c i r c l e ove r t he dep ic t ion a n d
' Defendants CSI, Monty Drake , and David Lubo w use the same aff idavits and declarations in their
An t i -SLAP P mo t ions . Each mo t ion wi l l be re fe rred to a s Defenda n ts ' An t i -SLA P P Mot ions ,
collectively.
P a g e 2 of25
3754
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
46/92
s e v e r a l S q u i r r e l B u s t e r s h a d v i d e o c a m e r a s a n d m i c r o p h o n e s o f t h e i r o w n , i n c l u d i n g
som e wi t h hea d- m ou n t e d ca me r as , l ig h t s , e t c . F r o m t h i s po in t f o r war d , i t i s c l ea r , an d the
C ou r t so f in ds , t ha t f ew i f an y con f r on t a t i on s w er e c iv i l w i t h bo t h s ides e i t he r i n i ti a t i n g
o r r e c i p r o c a t i n g .
Se e
va r io u s dec l a r a t i o n s f i led e i t h e r i n su p por t o f o r i n r es po n se t o t he
A n t i - S L A P P m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s .
4. De f en d an t E d B r y an w as sen t f rom C a l i f o r n i a by t he Of f i ce o f S pec i a l
A f f a ir s ( O S A ) , a d i v i s i o n o f C S I , t o j o i n t h e S q u i r r e l B u s t e r s i n T e x a s . O n J u l y
13,
2 0 1 1 , B r y a n w r o t e :
. . . .
This is in co-ordination with OSA
Int.
They are calling the shots
an d qu i t e f r an k l y I don ' t t h in k i t i s ve r y e f f ec t i ve . T h e r epor t e r s ca m e
t o o u r h o u s e t h e o t h e r d a y a n d w e d i d n ' t t e l l t h e m v e r y m u c h . O u r
ma in g u y wen t back to d i scu ss w i t h t h em a d i f f e r en t s t r a t eg y . T h e r a t
i s g e t t i n g m o r e b r a z e n a n d y e s t e r d a y I a c t u a l l y h a d a 1 m i n u t e
comm
c y c l e w i t h h i m while he was on a walk. T h e g u y i s n u t t i e r t ha n a
f r u i t cake . He ' s g on e o f f t he deep en d .
Taking him down w ill be no easy
task See
E x h . E t o P l a i n t i f f s 2
n d
A m e n d e d R e s p o n s e t o A n t i -
S L A P P M o t i o n s t o D i s m i s s
[emphasis
added],
[rjn t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e R a t h b u n h o m e / o f f i c e , J o a n n e W h e a t o n r e g u l a r l y
p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e S q u i r r e l B u s t e r a c t i v i t ie s [ o ] v e r a p e r i o d o f s e v e r a l m o n t h s .
Se e
D e c l a r a t i o n o f J o a n n e W h e a t o n @ Iffl 3 & 6 . W hi l e do in g so , a ho u se w as
r e n t e d b y L u b o w t w o b l o c k s f r o m t h e R a t h b u n s ' h o m e / o f f i c e f o r W h e a t o n a n d
o t her S qu i r r e l B u s t e r s t o s t ag e t he i r ac t i v i t i e s f r om which a g o l f ca r t was a l so
u t i l i zed t o t r ave l back an d f o r t h .
Id .
@ [̂ 4 . T h e p a r t ic i p a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l S q u i r r e l
B u s t e r s va r i ed f r om t im e to t ime a s t hey l e f t an d r e t u r n ed a t d i f f e r en t t im es f o r
d i f f e r en t r eason s .
Id. @
14.
See also
Af f idav i t o f R i c ha r d H i r s t @ 1] 7 .
A v i d e o g r a p h e r , B a r t P a r r , w a s h i r e d b y p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r D a v e , a . k . a .
Dav id , L u bo w t o fi lm t he p r o j ec t a t o r n ea r R a t hb u n ' s o f f i ce .
Se e
D e c l a r a t i o n
Page 3 of25
3755
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
47/92
of B ar t P a r r @ IfiJ 4 & 6 . T h e p r o j e c t o c c u r r e d o v e r a p e r i o d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6
m o n t h s .
Id. @
6 . E v iden ce i den t i f i e s , an d t he C o u r t so f in ds , t he pe r iod o f t ime
of t he S qu i r r e l B u s t e r ac t i v i t i e s a s hav in g s t a r t ed an d en ded , r espe c t i ve l y , i n Apr i l
2 0 1 1 a n d i n S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 1 .
Se e
A f f idav i t o f R i cha r d H i r s t @
^
10 and
D e c l a r a t i o n o f J o a n n e W h e a t o n @
K 14.
5 . T h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s , v i d e o g r a p h e r s a n d S q u i r r e l B u s t e r s i n t e r a c t e d w i t h t h e
R a t h b u n s m a n y [ p o s s i b l y h u n d r e d s o f ] t i m e s o v e r a p e r i o d o f t h e s e s e v e r a l m o n t h s ,
u su a l l y w he n t he g o l f ca r t w as pa r ke d n ea r t he i r o f fi ce [ on a de ad- en d s t r ee t wh en ]
f il min g wa s on g o in g , o r [ wh en ] t r ave l i n g abou t t he l i t tl e t ow n .
Se e
D e c l a r a t i o n o f
J o a n n e W h e a t o n @ 1 6 . I n a d d i t i o n , p r i v a t e i n v e s t ig a t o r M o n t y D r a k e u t il i z e d
s u r v e i l l a n c e , p h o t o g r a p h i n g , v i d e o t a p i n g a n d s t a t ic c a m e r a s t o fil m a r e a s o u t s i d e t h e
R a t h b u n s ' o f f i c e / h o m e i n pa r t f rom in s ide a s ec on d ho u se r en t ed by D r ak e ac r os s t he
s t r ee t f r om t he R a t hbu n s .
Se e
A f f i d a v it o f M o n t e D r a k e @ H 9 . W i t h o u t a n y t i m e
l i m i t a ti o n , D r a k e a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t h e w a s a b l e t o o b s e r v e p e r s o n s c o m i n g a n d g o i n g
f r o m t h e R a t h b u n s ' o f f i c e / h o m e .
See Id.
F o r s e v e r a l m o n t h s , w h e n th e R a t h b u n s l ef t
t he i r home, t he S qu i r r e l B u s t e r s g r ou p appea r ed i n a g o l f ca r t t o con f r on t t he R a t hbu n s
w i t h v i d e o c a m e r a s a n d t a u n t s . Se e M a r k R a t h b u n D e c l a r a t i o n in S u p p o r t o f P l a i n t i f f s
S e c o n d A m e n d e d R e s p o n s e t o D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s
2
[̂
27 . Du e t o bo t h t h i s
c o n s t a n t s u r v e i l l a n c e a n d th e S q u i r r e l B u s t e r a c t i v i t y c i t ed a b o v e , D e f e n d a n t s k n e w w h e n
P l a in t i f f l e f t home an d when she was home a l on e du e t o he r hu sban d hav in g l e f t t he i r
r e s i d e n c e . Se e F i r s t A m e n d e d D e c l a r a t i o n o f M o n i q u e R a t h b u n i n S u p p o r t o f P l a i n t i f f 's
1
Hereinafter referred to as Mark Rathbu n Declaration.
P a g e 4 of25
3756
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
48/92
S e c o n d A m e n d e d R e s p o n s e t o D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s
3
fflf
1 1 , 11a ,
l i b , H e ,
13a,
13c, 1 5, 15a and 1 5 b . W he n he r hus ba nd w a s ou t o f t ow n , P l a in t i f f w a s v i s i t ed a t hom e
on seve ra l oc c a s ions by unknow n ind iv idua l s w ho re fused to g ive the i r na mes .
Id .
@
^
5 .
6 . B e r t Lea hy w a s a l so h i red a s a v ide ogra phe r fo r t he Squ i r re l B us t e r s
g r o u p . H e w a s t o l d b y D e f e n d a n t L u b o w t h a t L u b o w h a d t w o p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r s w h o
w ere enga ged in su rve i l l a nc e o f P l a in t i f f a nd he r husba nd a nd w ere a b le t o keep t r a c k o f
th e Plaintiff's m o v e m e n t s o n a 2 4 / 7 b a s i s . Se e D e c l a r a t i o n o f B e r n a r d B e r t L e a h y ^ 6 .
Lea hy w a s d i rec t ed by Lubow to f i lm the Squ i r re l B us t e r s t a un t ing a nd ha ra ss ing the
R a t h b u n s . Id . A l t h o u g h d e n i e d b y L u b o w
{see
D e c l a r a t i o n o f D a v i d L u b o w U 4 ) , L ea hy
dec la red to ha v e been to ld tha t t he pu r pos e o f t he Squ i r re l B u s t e r s ' m iss ion w a s to ma ke
the R a th buns l if e a l iv ing he l l a nd to t u rn the i r ne ig hbo rs a ga ins t t h em so tha t P l a in t i f f
a nd he r husba nd w ou ld be fo rc ed f rom the i r r e s idenc e .
Id .
L e a h y ' s d e c l a r a t i o n i s
c o r robo ra t ed by Lubow ' s s t a t ed de s i re t o , in-part, c r e a t e a d o c u m e n t a r y s h o w i n g
[ R a t h b u n ' s ] t r u e n a t u r e a s a v i o l e n t , f o o l i s h ' s q u i r r e l ' . D e c l a r a t i o n o f D a v i d L u b o w @ [̂
12 . A s s i s t i n g i n t h i s p r o c e s s , C S I h i r e d R a l p h G o m e z a s m u s c l e . S e e D e c l a r a t i o n o f
B e r t Lea hy @ H 6 .
7 .
N o e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t a n y o f t h e
complained-of
Squ i r re l B us t e r
o r inves t iga t ive a c t iv i t i e s oc c ur red a t a n a c tua l c hurc h , a t a miss ion , a t a p l a c e o f w orsh ip
o r du r ing a ny o the r t ype o f r e l ig ious se rv ic e o r c e remony ; r a the r , mos t o f t he a c t iv i t i e s ,
inc lud ing those c i t ed by dec l a ra n t s fo r D e fenda n t C SI , oc c ur red a t l oc a t ions de sc r ibed by
t h e d e c l a r a n ts a s t h e R a t h b u n s ' h o m e , h o u s e , b u s i n e s s / r e s i d e n c e , b u s i n e s s ,
o f f i ce , h o m e / o f f i c e , o r o f f i c e / h o m e .
Se e
various dec la ra t ions f i led e i ther in
suppor t o f o r in r e sponse to t he A n t i -SLA PP mo t ion to d i smiss .
1
Hereinafter referred to as Firs t Ame nded Dec laration of Mon ique Rathb un.
Pa ge 5 of25
3757
-
8/20/2019 Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI state supreme court Petition
49/92
8 . Def en d an t s pu b l i she d i n f o r m a t ion f rom t he i r S qu i r r e l B u s t e r ac t i v i t y an d
c o n t i n u o u s s u r v e i l l a n c e o f t h e R a t h b u n s o n t h e i n t e r n e t, a d e d i c a t e d Y o u T u b e c h a n n e l ,
a n d o n a w e b s i t e , w h i c h in c l u d e d a s e c t i o n c a l l e d S p y C o m e r t h a t d i s c u s se d
i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d b y t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e o f t h e R a t h b u n s .
Se e
D e c l a r a t i o n o f B a r t P a r r @
^| 1 5 .
See also
D e c l a r a t i o n o f M a r k R a t h b u n @ 1̂ 2 8 . A l s o p u b l i s h e d w a s i n f o r m a t i o n
abo u t v i s i t o r s t o an d f rom t he R a t h bu n hom e c r ea t i n g a ch i l l i n g e f f ec t u po n M ar k
R a t h b u n a n d p o s s i b l y o t h e r s . Id.
9 . A t u n spec i f i ed t im es su bse qu en t t o 20 09 , P l a in t i f f a l so r ece ived
a n o n y m o u s a n d t h r e a t e n i n g p h o n e c a l l s , a n d s h e w a s f o l l o w e d t o a n d f r o m w o r k . See
F i r s t A m e n d e d D e c l a r a t i o n o f M o n i q u e R a t h b u n ^ 6 . S q u i r r e l B u s t e r s a n d S c i e n t o l o g y
i n v e s t i g a t o r s o r o p e r a t i v e s f o l l o w e d P l a i n t i f f t o a n d f r o m r e s t a u r