masterson-civil-suit

OR oat EW WN aos HON MN GINAL Robert W, Thompson, Esq. (SBN: 250038) Kristen A. Vierhaus, Esq. (SBN: 322778) THOMPSON LAW OFFICES,P.C. 700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160 Burlingame, CA 94010 FILED Tel: (650) 513-6111 / Fax: (650) 513-6071 Court of Cal (650) ae (e) eeeCetot Calionnin Brian D. Kent, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) AUG 22 2019 Gaetano D’ Andrea, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) M.Stewart Ryan, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) Sheri R. ive Olticat/Clerk of Court Helen L. Fitzpatrick, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) ®¥. Lauren Stram, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) 'saac Love LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP 1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 399-9255 / Fax: (215) 241-8700 SEE ATTACHMENT A FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC Case No.: BIXLER-ZAVALA:JANE DOE #1; MARIE 19STCV29456 BOBETTERIALES;and JANE DOE#2, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiffs, 1. STALKING IN VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE § 1708.7 Vs 2, PHYSICAL INVASION OF PRIVACY CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS § 1708.8 TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF 3. CONSTRUCTIVE INVASION OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE PRIVACYIN VIOLATION OF CAL. INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE; CIV. CODE § 1708.8 DANIEL MASTERSON;and DOES1 — 25, 4. INTENTIONALINELICTION OF Defendants EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 5. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM ><res JURY TRIAL DEMANDED > CO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiffs, Chrissie Carnell Bixler, Cedric Bixler-Zavala, Jane Doe #1, Bobette Riales, and Jane Doe #2, submit their complaint against Defendants, The Church of Scientology International; 1 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo © NI DR UA FSF WW NY + oOo NY HD Wn FB WN KF TD DOD DWN DH FF W NY YF O&O Religious Technology Center; Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International; David Miscavige; Daniel Masterson; and DOES1 — 25, andallege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1, This case is brought against the Defendant Organizations of Scientology, its leader, David Miscavige, and oneits staff members, Daniel Masterson, for the Defendants’ conspiracy to coverup that Daniel Masterson sexually assaulted four young women. When those women came forward to report Masterson’s crimes, the Defendants conspired to and systematically stalked, harassed, invaded their and their family’s privacy, and intentionally caused them emotional distress to silence and intimidate them. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Chrissie Carnell Bixler, is an adult female who works and resides in the State of California. 3. Plaintiff, Cedric Bixler-Zavala, is an adult male who works and resides in the State of California andatall times material is and was the lawful husband of Plaintiff Chrissie Carnell Bixler. 4, Plaintiff, Jane Doe #1, is an adult female whose name and address are not contained in this Complaint so as to protect her privacy and identity as she incurred injuries and damages of a sensitive nature as a result of the intentional acts of Defendants outlined below. Information which could identify Jane Doe #1 is not contained herein. Plaintiff may be contacted through her counsel as outlined herein. There exists good cause for Plaintiff to use a pseudonym due to the harmful effect of the public disclosure of her identity and the harm inflicted by the Defendants to Jane Doe #1. Plaintiff's undersigned counsel will provide the identity of Plaintiff to all Defendants. As such, Defendants suffer no prejudice as a result of concealing her identity in the Complaint and Verifications. 2 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES oO eo NIN DB WH FP WY NY co NY KN UN Fk WHO NH KF OD OOH NHN HD AHA Fe WwW NY KF C&O 5. Plaintiff, Marie Bobette Riales, is an adult female who lives and worksin the State ofIndiana. 6. Plaintiff, Jane Doe #2, is an adult female whose name and address are not contained in this Complaint so as to protect her privacy and identity as she incurred injuries and damages of a sensitive nature as a result of the intentional acts of Defendants outlined below. Information which could identify Jane Doe #2 is not contained herein. Plaintiff may be contacted through her counsel as outlined herein. There exists good cause for Plaintiff to use a pseudonym due to the harmful effect of the public disclosure of her identity and the harminflicted by the Defendants to Jane Doe #2. Plaintiffs undersigned counsel will provide the identity of Plaintiff to all Defendants. As such, Defendants suffer no prejudice as a result of concealing her identity in the Complaint and Verifications. 7. Defendant, Church of Scientology International (“CSI’), is a California Corporation which,at all material times, was doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. CSI’s primary place of business and headquarters is located at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90028. 8. Defendant, Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), is a California Corporation which,at all material times, was doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. RTC’s primary place of business and headquartersis located at 1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90028. 9. Defendant, Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International (“CCI”), is a California Corporation which, at all material times, was doing business in the County of Los 3 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo oOo NY DB On F& W NPY ro tw tO ro ho tw bo nw we) — — _ — — — ry — "1 pet Ce ~s ON oA) = WwW NO — Oo Oo oo ~l nN WN ae UW nN — oC Angeles, State of California. CCI’s primary place of business and headquarters is located at 5930 Franklin Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90028.! 10. Defendant, David Miscavige, is and at all material times was a resident of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Miscavige is the Chairman of the Board of the RTC, and the de facto leader of all aspects of RTC, CSI, CCI, and any related Scientology institution/organization, including, but not limited to, the Sea Organization and the Office of Special Affairs. Mr. Miscavige is believed to reside at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90028. 11. Defendant, Daniel Masterson, is and at all relevant times was believed to be a resident of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Masterson is believed to reside at 2151 Hollyridge Drive, Los Angeles, California 90068. 12. At all relevant times, the Institutional Defendants, Mr. Miscavige, and Mr. Masterson acted through their/his employees, members, servants, and respective agents. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Does 1 through 25, inclusive, were the agents, servants, employees, representatives, contractors, and/or subcontractors of the Institutional Defendants, Mr. Miscavige, and/or Mr. Masterson and in doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the course and scope and purpose of their authority as such agents, servants, employees, representatives, contractors, and/or subcontractors, and with the permission and consentoftheir employer andthe Institutional Defendants, Mr. Miscavige, and/or Mr. Masterson. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sues these Defendants by said fictitious names. /// ' Where appropriate, Defendants CSI, RTC, and CCIare hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Institutional Defendants.” 4 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Co Oo NIN DO UU Fe WY YP bh hw i) bo tO bo NO tO bdo — — — ot — —_ — — — peek co ~ oO WN > Ww to om SS \o oe — ON Wa = ww i) — Oo JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10. Plaintiffs seek damages under the statutory and commonlaw of the State of California for Defendants’ wrongful actions. 14. Venueis proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 because (a) some of the acts and transactions described herein occurred within this county; (b) Defendants are or were registered to do business in the State of California and/or were doing business within this county; (c) because Defendants did do business in this county by operating and/or exercising complete control over the operations of the Institutional Defendants; and (d) because Defendants Miscavige and Mastersonare individuals residing in this county. INTRODUCTION 15. This case is brought against the Defendant Organizations of Scientology, its leader, David Miscavige, and oneits staff members, Daniel Masterson, for the Defendants’ conspiracy to coverup that Daniel Masterson sexually assaulted four young women. When those women came forward to report Masterson’s crimes, the Defendants conspired to and systematically stalked, harassed, invaded their and their family’s privacy, and intentionally caused them emotional distress to silence and intimidate them. FACTUAL HISTORY (Background and Organizational Structure of Scientology) 16. Defendants, RTC and CSI, along with a network of Scientology organizations that sit underneath RTC and CSI, including the CCI, make up whatis informally knownto the public as “The Churchof Scientology”or “Scientology.” “Scientology” wascreated by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 following the publication of “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.” Its practices are mandated by the writings, thoughts, and teachings of Mr. Hubbard. 5 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo fo NY WD UN F&F W WNP KF eet > Ww NO —&| & 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 17. For those following Scientology, the writings of L. Ron Hubbard mustbestrictly practiced and followed in a fundamentalist, orthodox mannerwith strict adherenceto the policies, procedures, and practices as written and dictated by L. Ron Hubbard. 18. After L. Ron Hubbard passed away in 1986, Defendant David Miscavige assumed control of Scientology and is known as “Chairmanofthe Board” or “COB.” Defendant Miscavige operates, manages, and/or controls RTC, CSI, and the entire network of Scientology organizations that fall beneath RTC and CSI, including the CCI. 19. The senior hierarchy of Scientology organizations, including, but not limited to the RTC,CSI, and CCI are staffed and run by an organization known as the Sea Organization (“Sea Org”). 20. The Sea Org is a paramilitary organization wherein each Sea Org memberholds a naval rank from Swamper(initiate) to Commodore(thetitle held by Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard during his life). The Sea Org is comprised of Scientology’s most dedicated members. 21. Defendant Miscavige controls, directs, and supervises the Sea Org and its members. (The Practice of Auditing) 22. A Scientologist’s salvation is premised on completing the “Bridge to Total Freedom,” which requires reading Mr. Hubbard’s extensive materials and completing a series of courses and “auditing sessions.” These courses and auditing sessions are the only way to achieve the covetedstatus of “Clear” and, beyondthat, “Operating Thetan.” 23. During an “auditing session,” a member meets with an “auditor,” who is generally a higher-ranking Scientologist and often a Sea Org member. The “auditor” has the memberhold two metal rods commonly referred to as “cans” of an “electropsychometer” or “e-meter.” An e￾meter, is designed to “measure[] the mental state or change of state of a person and thus is of 6 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Go Oo ON DN OH SF} WY YN KF rr | =e WwW wo 16 17 18 19 20 2] 23 24 25 26 28 benefit to the auditor . . . [to] locate areas to be handled.” As Hubbard said and Defendants maintain, “an e-meter is better known as a ‘lie detector’ and is used to ascertain truth of backgroundand conduct.” 24. Members are audited repeatedly. Auditing sessions may occur daily and involve several hours of being forced to reveal explicit, personal details regarding daily thoughts and activities, including sexual habits, crimes committed (including violent crimes, such as rape), sexualfantasies, adultery, etc. 25. During these sessions, the auditor takes copious notes on what the memberreports, including informationrelating to crimes they have committed or that have been committed against them. These notesare thenplaced in a folder and maintained by Scientology permanently. (Reporting Crime is Forbidden) 26. Whether discovered during auditing or otherwise, Defendants forbid members from contacting police to report a crime committed by any member. The Institutional Defendants instruct their members and agents that reporting such instances to law enforcementis considered a “high crime” and subjects the member to punishment. 27. The Defendants instruct their members and agentsthat: Police and courts offer an open-armed opportunity to the vicious and corrupt to establish themselves in a position of safety while satisfying their strange appetites of perverted viciousness toward their fellow man... . Justice systems thereby becomea sort of cancer which erode every splendid ambition and achievement of the decent citizen. . . . “Justice” apparently cannot be trusted in the hands of Man... . Who is Public Enemy #1 today? The FBI! Its obvious target is every opinion leader and public-spirited group in America! ? CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INT'L, http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part] 4/Chp50/pg1020- a.html(last visited Aug. 12, 2019). 3 Hubbard Comme’ns Office Bulletin from L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology Founder, regarding Security Check[s] (Feb. 3, 1960). > L. Ron Hubbard, INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGYETHICS (1972). 7 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES iy Go Oo wom N Dn HN Fe YW NY fe ne a oOo CO YN WB wn FP W YN 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28. The Institutional Defendants instruct their members and agents that the only answer to a crime being committed by its members, including rape or other sexual abuse, is found in the practices directed by the Defendants, not law enforcement or the court system. Victims (andall others) are expressly prohibited from contacting law enforcement. 29. To prevent members from contacting authorities when any crime is revealed, witnessed, or suspected, the Institutional Defendants and Defendant Miscavige require the phones within certain facilities to be incapableof dialing 911. (The Defendants Punish Those Who Report Crimes) 30. Defendants do not treat victims of sexual abuse as victims atall. Instead, one who suffers sexual abuse (whetheran adult or a child) is assumed to have done something to incite or invite such abuse. Defendants claim sexual abuse victims “pull in” the abuse they have suffered. 31. Historically, when a member has complained of suffering sexual abuse, this disclosure has resulted in the member being forced to confront or apologize to his or her abuser and to undergo a program to identify what “pulled in” the abuse. 32. There is a department within CSI known as the Office of Special Affairs (“OSA”). OSA is the legal, public relations, and intelligence network of CSI. One or more network representatives from OSA are employed at every Scientology organization across the world. 33. OSAandits operations were andare directed by Defendant Miscavige. 34. The Defendants, through OSA, utilize what Scientology calls “Fair Game”tactics to attack, harass, embarrass, humiliate, destroy, and/or injure individuals who Defendants declare to be a “suppressive person” or “SP.” 35. Defendants declare anyone who flees or speaks out against Scientology a suppressive person and direct members and agents to subject them to such Fair Gaming as described morefully below. 8 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Wo WN > (The Concept of “Fair Game”) 36. Per Defendants’ directives, anyone who flees Scientology or is otherwise deemed an SP, must be silenced by whatever means necessary. Defendants instruct members to damage the person’s professional reputation, file frivolous lawsuits, and harass and surveil “the enemy.” The policy and practice of destroying these individuals is known within Scientology as the “Fair Game Policy.” 37. A person whois declared an enemy of Scientology is Fair Gamefor relentless and cruel behavior. A person who is Fair Game “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” 38. Defendants instruct OSA andits agents to “haunt” declared enemies of Scientology through concrete action, including surveillance and the use of private investigators. Moreover, according to Hubbard’s mandates, information must be disseminated that will damage the individual’s professional and private reputation regardless of the truth of the information disseminated. Defendants’ policies and procedures encourage and/orinstruct followers to “ruin [the individual] utterly.”® 39. Moreover, under the Defendants’ policy andpractice, they must threaten that which an enemy seeksto protect, or as Hubbard ordered, “discover what the person really is defending and threatenit effectively.”’ This includes friends and family of an enemyofScientology. /// Mf > Allard v. Church ofScientology, 58 Cal. App. 3d 439 n.1 (Ct. App. 1976). 6 L. Ron Hubbard, A Manual on the Dissemination ofMaterial, THE MAGAZINE OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY, Mar. 1955, at 157. 7 Mem.regarding Counter Attack Tactics (Mar. 28, 1972). 9 PLAINTIFFS’? COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES — DoD Oo won Dn An F&F W WN pt tek te &e Ww PO — 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Implementation of “Fair Game”) 40. Defendants implement Fair Game in a variety of different ways all with the single objective to destroy anyone whomthey have deemed an enemyof Scientology with the ultimate 9 ” 1 0 goal to “shudder [them] into silence,”® “obliterate [them],”” and “ruin [them]utterly. 4], Historically, Defendants have hired private investigators to surveil, follow, video record, and photograph SPs. TheInstitutional Defendants have rented homesin close proximity to the perceived threatto place their “enemies” underaround-the-clock surveillance. 42. Subjects of Defendants’ fair gaming activities have included The United States Government, United States Attorneys, Elected Officials, Judges, The Drug Enforcement Administration, The United States Coast Guard, The American Medical Association, The National Institute of Mental Health, as well as former membersor otherindividuals. 43. In 1979, multiple Scientologists, including L. Ron Hubbard’s wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, were convicted of conspiring to infiltrate, wiretap, and steal United States government documents. The United States Attorney’s Office’s Sentencing Memorandum in that matter outlined Scientology’s fair-gaming tactics and conduct: They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. .. . To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called "fair game doctrine" could be invoked. . . . The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe from their snooping andprying. No individual or organization was free fromtheir despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes. 8 Hubbard Comme’ns Office Manual of Justice by L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology Founder. ° Hubbard Comme’ns Office Policy Letter from L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology Founder, regarding Battle Tactics (Feb. 16, 1969). '© Hubbard, 4 Manual onthe Dissemination ofMaterial, supra, at n.7. 'l Sentencing Mem. of the United States at 45-46, 69, United States of America v. Mary Sue Hubbard, et al., criminal case no. 78-401 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 3, 1979), https://archive.org/stream/U SAV.MarySueHubbardEtAl/Sentencing%20memorandum_djvu.txt. 10 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES — DoD Oo ON DH FSF W WKY Mo wo NO KN NHN HN NHN DN NO rm ee Oo NAY DW WN FBP W NY KH DBD DO wnANnI nD Hn FF W NY 44. Despite the release of the Sentencing Memorandum, Scientology’s use of extraordinary surveillance tactics and technology has not ceased. In 2012, two private investigators revealed they had been assigned to conduct various surveillance operations for the Institutional Defendants and Defendant Miscavige for the preceding twenty-five years.” 45. In 2013, a private investigator surveilling Defendant Miscavige’s father (who had left Scientology) was arrested by law enforcement in Wisconsin. He was found with tworifles, four handguns, 2,000 rounds of ammunition, a homemade silencer, two laptop computers, binoculars, a GPS tracking device, and a stun gun. He revealed he had been following the elder Miscavige for eighteen months at the direction of Defendants CSI and Miscavige. His surveillance tactics included eavesdropping, taking the elder Miscavige’s garbage, photographing him, and placing a magnetic GPS tracking device underhis vehicle"? 46. In March 2014,another private investigator was arrested by the FBI when it was learned that he wasillegally wiretapping phone calls and hacking into the email accounts of, amongothers, two individuals identified as enemiesby the Institutional Defendants." 47. Courts have repeatedly acknowledgedthe existence of the Defendants’ fair-gaming policy and conduct. Scientology has a “history of seeking retribution against its perceived enemies.”!> 12 Thomas C. Tobin, Private investigator’s lawsuit against Church of Scientology comes to an end, TAMPA BAY TIMES, Dec. 1, 2012, https://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/private- investigators-lawsuit-against-church-of-scientology-comes-to-an-end/1264073. 13° Kim Christensen, Exclusive: Scientology head’s father wasspied on, police report says, LOS ANGELES Times, Apr. 8, 2015, https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-scientology￾private-eyes-20 150409-story.html (08 "Matthew Goldstein, Hired Hacker Who Named Clients Now Fears Retaliation, N.Y. TIMES, July 8, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/201 5/07/09/business/dealbook/hacker-feared-retaliation-from- clients-court-documents-show.html. 15 Soe also Wollersheim v. ChurchofScientology, 212 Cal. App. 3d 872, 880, (Ct. App. 1989), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Church ofScientology ofCalifornia v. Wollersheim, 499 U.S. 914 (1991) (“Scientologyis a hierarchical organization which exhibits near paranoid attitudes toward certain institutions and individuals—in particular, the government, mental health 11 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo fe NI DB A FP W YN MW NM NM YN NN KN HN He ee oo aA nN FB Oo YH KF SG Oo wo NID HW FWY K CO (Defendant Daniel Masterson and the Institutional Defendants’ Special Treatment of Celebrities) 48. Nearly since its inception, Scientology has had a special focus on “artists, politicians, leaders ofindustry, [and] sports figures.”'° This was because Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, saw these individuals, and celebrities in particular, as powerful tools to influence and recruit new members. 49. Hubbard developed “Project Celebrity” to recruit celebrities to accept his nascent belief system and adopt his practices.'” Hubbard encouraged Scientologists to target celebrities as “quarry” and recruit them to Scientology.'® Hubbard published a list of celebrities and then promised any member whowasableto “bring one [] home”a “small plaque as a reward.””” 50. Those considered celebrities are given special status and granted their own “churches.” These “Celebrity Centres” were established as organizations “specifically founded”to provide special Scientology services“to artists, athletes and leaders in the business world{gaiéer””° 51. Defendant Daniel Masterson was born into Scientology. He began Scientology “coursework” between the ages of eight and ten. 52. Defendant Masterson rose to public prominence in 1998 when he appeared on the television show That 70’s Show. 53. Once he achievedthis celebrity status, Masterson became highly regarded within the Church of Scientology and was granted special treatment. Masterson has also held prominent professions, disaffected membersand others whocriticize the organization or its leadership. Evidencealso was introduced detailing Scientology's retribution policy, sometimescalled “fair ame.”). SCIENTOLOGY Celebrity Centre Int’l, https://www.scientology.cc/en_US/about/index.html (last visited Aug. 13, 2019). '7 Joel Sappell & Robert Welkos, The Courting of Celebrities, LOS ANGELES TIMES, June 25, 1990, https://www.latimes.com/local/la-scientology062590b-story.html. Oi 20” §cigNTOLOGY NEWSROOM, _ https://www.scientologynews.org/faq/what-are-celebrity￾centres.html(last visited Aug. 13, 2019). 12 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo me NDB YH FP W YN eee me Wo NO —-§ & 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 roles within Scientology, including being a Commissionerfor the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, an organization founded in 1969 by the Church ofScientology “to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of humanrights.” Mastersonalso has a history of promoting and fundraising for Scientology. 54. The Institutional Defendants closely monitorand protect celebrity members. 55. To that end, the Institutional Defendants and Defendant Miscavige worked with Defendant Masterson to keep Masterson’s sexual assault victims from reporting their abuse and mobilized an aggressive Fair Game campaign against the victims once the sexual assaults had been disclosed. (Plaintiff Chrissie Bixler’s Background with Scientology and Defendant Masterson) 56. Plaintiff Bixler was working in Los Angeles, California when she met Mastersonat a party in 1996. They started dating, and the couple moved in together and lived in a house with Masterson’s three youngersiblings. 57. Masterson was controlling in the relationship, and Plaintiff Bixler became involved in the Church of Scientology in 1997 perhis orders. 58. Masterson regularly forced Plaintiff Bixler to have sex with him and became violent when Plaintiff Bixler refused. In one instance, after Plaintiff Bixler refused sex, Masterson dragged Plaintiff Bixler naked across their bedroom floor while berating her appearance. He then threw her,still naked, into the hall and locked the bedroom door. 59. Following this incident, Plaintiff Bixler was required by the Institutional Defendants to do an “ethics program” during which she told an employee of the Institutional Defendants about Masterson’s sexually coercive and abusive treatment of her. The employee advised Plaintiff Bixler that her job as Masterson’s girlfriend was “to give him sex wheneverhe wants it” and that if she complied, “these things wouldn’t happen.” 13 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Go Oo ON DBA FP WD HN a mm WwW NO Ke 60. Inlate 2001 to early 2002, Masterson’s already violent treatment of Plaintiff Bixler escalated. Masterson committed multiple acts of sexual violence and assault against Plaintiff Bixler. On more than one occasion Plaintiff Bixler awoke in bed to find Masterson sexually assaulting her. In one specific instance, Masterson drugged Plaintiff Bixler’s wine at dinner and anally assaulted her. The following morning, Masterson admitted that he had anal sex with her while she was unconscious. 61. The next day, Plaintiff Bixler went to Defendant CSI to report Masterson’s actions to head ethics officer, Miranda Pearson Scoggins. Mrs. Scoggins listened to Plaintiff Bixler’s account and told her that Plaintiff Bixler was not to refer to the incident as “rape.” Mrs. Scoggins assisted Plaintiff Bixler in writing a report about what happened,butinstead of a standard incident report, Plaintiff Bixler was instructed to write a “Things That Shouldn’t Be” Report. In summary, Mrs. Scoggins told Plaintiff Bixler that she was not raped, because “you can’t be raped by someone you are in a consensualrelationship with.” Mrs. Scoggins went on to ask Plaintiff Bixler whatshe did to cause the assault and ordered her to complete an ethics course. 62. Mrs. Scoggins then ordered Plaintiff Bixler to read several Hubbard ethicspolicies including “Ethics Protection” and a list of acts considered to be “High Crimes” within Scientology, which if committed, would result in a person being declared an SP. These High Crimes included reporting to the authorities the sexual assault Defendant Masterson had committed. 63. Plaintiff Bixler was also ordered to read policies detailing how the Institutional Defendants deal with SPs. It was clear to Plaintiff Bixler that continuing to talk about the incident would result in Plaintiff Bixler being declared an SP and being subjected to the harsh treatment accorded enemiesof Scientology. 14 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo won nA Nn fF Ww YN — ft —_- © 64. From January through February 2002, Plaintiff Bixler was made to do continuous ethics programs while the Institutional Defendants imposed no negative consequences on Masterson despite his criminal actions. Masterson told Plaintiff Bixler that Scientology justified his treatment of her. He explained he did not have to attend ethics programs because he was flourishing and prospering in life. (Defendants largely equate “goodness” with individual success.) 65. In mid-February 2002, Plaintiff Bixler broke up with Masterson and moved out of his home. Afterwards, she was ordered to meet with Chris Scoggins, an employee of the Institutional Defendants, and Masterson. 66. | Whenshearrived at Mr. Scoggins’s office, there was a document prepared for her to sign stating that she would never speak publicly about her relationship with Masterson or sue him for any reason. 67. Plaintiff Bixler was not permitted to read the documentnor wasshe given a copy of it. Plaintiff Bixler was told she owedherlife to Masterson because he saved her by bringing her into Scientology and she had to sign the document then and there. Mr. Scoggins remarked to Masterson in Plaintiff Bixler’s presence: “She will sign it. She will like being a Scientologist more than she will like the alternative.” 68. Plaintiff Bixler signed the document because she feared that if she did not cooperate, she would be labeled a “suppressive person” or “SP,” be subjected to fair game, and lose herfriends and family. (Defendants’ Fair Gaming Campaign Against the Bixler Plaintiffs) 69. In the followingyears, Plaintiff Bixler did not disclose the sexual abuse and assault she suffered from Defendant Masterson. 15 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo Co aI HD UO FP WD YP — So tO i) i} nN Nw i) do tO — — —_— — — ht — — aon “I On nN = WW bo — > Neo} ce ~ oO WN a (oe) ie) — NOoo 70. But in early 2016, Plaintiff Bixler was contacted by D.P., a former Scientologist and friend of Masterson’s, who asked if Masterson had raped Plaintiff Bixler. When Plaintiff Bixler confirmed that she had beensexually assaulted by Defendant Masterson, D.P. informed her that he knew of another woman,Plaintiff Jane Doe #1, who wassexually assaulted by Masterson. 71. DP.told Plaintiff Bixler he was present at Masterson’s house and witnessed part of Defendant Masterson’s assault of Plaintiff Jane Doe #1. Within days of witnessing the assault, D.P. had beencalled to report to a Defendant CCIfacility and told by Institutional Defendants’ employee, representative, and agent Miranda Scoggins that Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 was being “handled.” 72. D.P. would later be harassed by the Institutional Defendants and others acting at the direction of Defendants when he cooperated with law enforcementin support ofPlaintiffs. 73. The day after learning another woman had also suffered from being sexually assaulted by Defendant Masterson, Plaintiff Bixler had a panic attack and was hospitalized. Plaintiff Bixler has suffered from panicattacks since that time. 74. Shortly after receiving D.P.’s phonecall, Plaintiff Bixler was contacted by Jenny Butler, the Vice President of Defendant CCI. Butler asked Plaintiff Bixler if she was contacted by D.P. Upon hearing that she had beenso contacted, Butler told Plaintiff Bixler not to speak to D.P. againas he was a “suppressive person.” 75. In September of 2016, Plaintiff Bixler emailed Ethics Officer Ellery Travers of Defendant CCIto inform her of what Masterson had doneto Plaintiff Bixler and to inquire how CSI had handled her 2002 report of sexual assault. Travers responded by saying Masterson’s folders were not at CCI but said she would look into it. Travers then failed to return any of Plaintiff Bixler’s phonecalls, texts, or emails. 16 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo Oo INIT Do rH Fe WY WL 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 23 26 28 76. Plaintiff Bixler sought Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s contact information and in October of 2016, they were able to speak. They discussed the abuse they had suffered from Defendant Masterson andthe Institutional Defendants. 77. In the following days, Plaintiff Bixler sent letters to Defendant Masterson, Brie Shaffer (his personal assistant), Travers, Butler, and Susan Watson (President of Defendant CCl), formally terminating her relationship with Scientology and informing them that she was aware of the roles they played in her abuse and the subsequentefforts to silence her. 78. Plaintiff Bixler never heard back from any of those individuals, but after sending the letters, Plaintiff Bixler’s friends and associates who were Scientologists completely disconnected from herand blocked her on social media. 79. After sending the letters, Plaintiff Bixler was contacted by Masterson’s publicist, Jenni Weinman.Plaintiff Bixler refused many of hercalls but agreed to speak after Weinmansaid she was contacting Plaintiff Bixler because “it’s about to get bad for you and your family.” Weinman forwardeda letter from Masterson to Plaintiff Bixler. The letter contained threatening, abusive, and harassing language. 80. Weinman also stated to Plaintiff Bixler that what she was claiming happened between her and Masterson could not constitute rape because she and Masterson were in a relationship at the time. 81. These statements were nearly identical to those Plaintiff Bixler had beentold years ago by the Institutional Defendants, and Weinman was later recorded making them again about Plaintiff Bixler 82. In December of 2016, Plaintiff Bixler reported the sexual assault against her by Masterson to police, and the Los Angeles Police Department opened an investigation. The investigationis still ongoing. 17 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo wo nN Ww Wo Fe WY PO — ee — 83. The Institutional Defendants then declared Plaintiff Bixler an SP and conducted harassment, surveillance, and abuseofthe Bixler Plaintiffs pursuant to the fair gaming policy. 84. Upon information and belief, all the following-described acts of harassment, surveillance, and/or stalking were carried out by or at the direction of Defendants’ employees, agents, and/or representatives. 85. Almost weekly, the Bixler Plaintiffs awoke to find their car doors and trunk opened. 86. Throughout 2017, on a persistent and regular basis, the Bixler Plaintiffs observed Defendants’ agents loitering outside their home and looking into their windows. The Bixler Plaintiffs observed vans parking outside their homeandfilming their home and family. 87. As a result, the Bixler Plaintiffs invested in a home security system andinstalled cameras. During the installation, the technician verbally supplied the Bixler Plaintiffs with the password for the system. Within five minutes, the security system was hacked, and the password was changed. The installation technician, who was still present and observed the unsolicited change in password, had no explanation for how this could occur. 88. Over the course of four months, Defendants hacked and disabled the Bixler Plaintiffs’ home security system five times. 89. In October of 2017, Plaintiff Bixler was driving on the street where her home was located when she was chased by two of Defendants’ agents in a vehicle who were filming her. Plaintiff Bixler was so frightened that she drove to the local police department. Plaintiff Bixler reported this incident and the hacking attempts to law enforcement and wasadvised not to return homefor the night. 90. | When Plaintiff Bixler returned to her home, she noticed that a pile of important mail was missing from the table she hadleft it on. 18 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES oT Oo ON DO UN Fe WY YP bo nN bo NO i) NO bo NO bho — _ _— —_ — — —_— — — _— oo | oN oa) = uo nN — QS \O oo ~ nN WN > bo nN — 91. The following day, the Bixler Plaintiffs’ family dog died inexplicably. They requested an autopsy and learned that the dog died of unexplained traumatic injuries to her trachea and esophagus. 92. In Novemberof 2017, Defendants’ agent followed Plaintiff Bixler into a nail salon and harassed and photographedher. 93. In November of 2017, Defendants hacked Plaintiff Bixler’s email account and attempted to deleteit. 94. In January of 2018, the Bixler Plaintiffs and their family moved back to Los Angeles, California. Three days after moving into their new residence, they awoketo findall their car doors open. 95. In June of 2018, Defendants hacked into Plaintiff Bixler’s Instagram account and attempted to change the password. 96. In August of 2018, Plaintiff Bixler saw a manin a white truck parked outside of her homefor several hours. During this time, Plaintiff Bixler was experiencing technical issues with her cell phone. Plaintiff Bixler approached the man and observed a computer, cell phone, and other device set up inside his truck. The manand Plaintiff Bixler got into a verbalaltercation, and the man ultimately spat on Plaintiff Bixler. Plaintiff Bixlercalled the police and the man waslater identified as Steve Miller, an agent of Defendants. 97. Steve Miller and his vehicle werelater identified by Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 and D.P. as the same person whopreviously surveilled them in front of their homes. Hewas also identified by individuals who had seen Miller passing out Scientology pamphlets on Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. 98. In August of 2018, Defendants’ agents Heather Seidler and Virginia Macgregor published posts to their Facebook accounts inciting fellow Scientologists to assist in harassing 19 PLAINTIFFS’? COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo © NY DW Fe WO NH — 6©«SO 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Bixler. In one post, Macgregorstated that Plaintiff Bixler was “reminiscing aboutall the anal sex [Plaintiff Bixler] obviously miss[es].” 99. In and around September of 2018, Defendants’ agent Kathy Gold started publicly threatening Plaintiff Bixler, the other Plaintiffs, and their relatives. Gold threatened to commit serious and violent crimes against Plaintiffs including murder. Gold accused Plaintiffs of being religious bigots and liars. Gold threatened to report Plaintiff Bixler to Child Services to have the Bixler Plaintiffs’ then five-year-old twins taken away from then and further threatened that the children would be drugged and raped. 100. Also aroundthis time, Defendants’ agents broke the lock to the Bixler Plaintiffs’ front door. 101. Since Plaintiff Bixler’s report to law enforcement in December 2016, the Bixler Plaintiffs have repeatedly been the subject of credit card fraud. The Bixler Plaintiffs also have been subjected to fraudulent credit schemes that have resulted in creditors and collectors harassing them for paymenton itemsandservices that they did not orderor receive. 102. Plaintiff Bixler has been targeted for harassment via social media, including by anonymous and/or unidentified individuals that utilized information that could be gathered only fromthe Institutional Defendants’ auditing files. 103. Plaintiff Bixler has been the victim of fake ads posted by Defendants on Craig’s List which purport to be hersoliciting anal sex from strangers. She has subsequently received contact from men respondingto the fakeads. 104. In April of 2019, Plaintiff Bixler and Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 attended Denim Day,a sexual violence prevention event. When they arrived, they were immediately confronted by Defendants’ agents who harassed and filmed them. Scientologist Taryn Rinder confronted both Plaintiff Bixler and Plaintiff Jane Doe #1. 20 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 0 eon Dn an FF W NY nN N i) bo bo bo bo nw bho — bod — — —_ — — — — — oO ~~ OV Nn = Ww hw ee oS oO co ~ ON nN - Ww N om oS 105. In May of 2019, Plaintiff Bixler received messages from a personshe did not know who asked Plaintiff Bixler to meet him at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, whichis the headquarters of Defendant CSI, the purported residence of Miscavige, and a location from which both Defendant RTC and OSA operate. 106. In June of 2019, an agent of Defendants and friend of Defendant Masterson’s contacted Plaintiff Bixler-Zavala and threatened to leak nude photos of an underage Plaintiff Bixler. 107. Also in June 2019, Plaintiff Bixler was run off the road by a vehicle that was following her. 108. Defendants fraudulently registered Plaintiff Bixler’s vehicle so that it appeared stolen, 109. In June of 2019, the Bixler Plaintiffs and their family moved to a new homeas a result of this constant surveillance and harassment. They specifically selected this residenceasit is private and surrounded by government owned property. No other homes werevisible from inside the BixlerPlaintiffs’ home at the time they movedin. After moving in, Plaintiff Chrissie Bixler observed two men on an adjacentproperty cutting downa large tree branch. Oncethis tree branch was removed, the inside of the home was visible to another property that was previously blocked by the branch. 110. In July of 2019, a different tree on the BixlerPlaintiffs’ property was poisoned and had to be removed. Once removed, the Bixler Plaintiffs’ property was further visible to adjacent properties. 111. Also in July of 2019, the Bixler Plaintiffs observed a manloitering around their property and looking into windows for over two hours. Upon seeing the man outside, Plaintiff Bixler-Zavala stated “he’s OSA for sure.” Seemingly able to hear him, the man looked up 21 PLAINTIFFS’? COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES wo won Dn Un FSF WW NO —_— ne) immediately and smiled at the Bixler Plaintiffs. The manleft, only to return several hours later. Whenthe Bixler Plaintiffs saw him the second time, he smiled and waved. 112. The Bixler Plaintiffs’ trash has been regularly stolen for approximately the last three years. 113. Defendants have used numerous technological forms of harassment against the BixlerPlaintiffs. Both have received repeated and harassing spamphonecalls. Plaintiff Bixler has received calls on her phone that appear to originate from her own phone number. The Bixler Plaintiffs receive text alerts that are delayed by days, weeks, months, and evenyears. Plaintiff Bixlerhas received emails originating from her own email account containing dangerouslinks she did not send. The BixlerPlaintiffs were the victims of repeated email hacks that included the destruction of important email messages contained in their accounts. Plaintiff Bixler’s phone was “ported” such that calls, text messages, and other information were routed to a device that does not belong to her, and of whichsheis not in possession. 114. To this day, the Bixler Plaintiffs continues to be threatened, harassed, stalked, and surveilled. (Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s Background with Scientology and Danny Masterson) 115. Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 was raised in Scientology by her parents and became a memberofthe Sea Org at age seventeen. 116. Jane Doe #1 met Daniel Masterson in 1999-2000 as he was acquainted with Jane Doe #1’s father. Additionally, Jane Doe #1’s close friend, Brie Shaffer was employed as Masterson’s personalassistant. 117. Jane Doe #1 would see Masterson often at social gatherings due to their mutual friends, but they were not friends themselves. 22. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Co ON Dn wn FF W YP eet fe Ww NP | O&O 118. At these social gatherings, Masterson would make sexual advances towards Jane Doe #1 then berate her whenshe refused him. 119. In September 2002, Jane Doe #1 was supposed to meetwith a group that included Shaffer, Defendant Masterson, and others. After she had arrived, Jane Doe #1 learned that Shaffer was not going to attend. She did, however, encounter Masterson, who hadalready purchased her a drink and encouraged her to consumeit. 120. Immediately after Jane Doe #1 finished the first drink, Masterson ordered her a second. As she began to consumethe second drink, Jane Doe#1 felt the effects of the alcohol. The effects Jane Doe #1 felt were greater than she expected after having consumed similar amounts of alcoholin the past. 121. Jane Doe #1 was supposed to stay at Shaffer’s house but due to her absence and other factors, Shaffer arranged for Jane Doe#1 to stay in Masterson’s guest room. 122. Jane Doe #1 wasintoxicated and wentto bedalone in the guest room. She awoketo Masterson having sex with her. Jane Doe #1 was intoxicated to the point that she could not have consented andin fact did not consent to this sexual contact. She was confused,disoriented, scared, and intoxicated to the point that she could not defend herselforresist. 123. Eventually, Jane Doe #1 wasable to push Mastersonoff of her. 124, Jane Doe #1 did not want to have sex with Masterson and did not consent to any sexual encounter, but she blamed herself for what occurred for having consumed alcoholthat night. Nonetheless, she tried to avoid being alone with Masterson. 125. On or about April 24-25, 2003, Jane Doe #1 was present for a gathering at Masterson’s home. There were multiple people present. Most were in Masterson’s backyard drinking and using a Jacuzzi tub. 23 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo CO AN DB UF FP W YP oO wpoO Pb HNO KN KO KD KN weDN co Sr ND Nn Lo No — SS oOo wo nA nN WN > WwW bo — oO 126. Masterson made Jane Doe #1 a drink and as she drank it, she began to feel very sick and disoriented. Jane Doe #1 became far more intoxicated than she had been previously when drinking the same amountof alcohol. Jane Doe #1 could only conclude that she had been drugged. 127. Defendant Masterson forcefully pulled Jane Doe #1 out of her chair and pushed her into the Jacuzzi tub. 128. After Jane Doe #1 got out of the Jacuzzi tub, she began to feel worse, she could not open her eyes and washaving a difficult time breathing. Masterson said he would take her inside to throw up. Jane Doe #1 said she did not want to go with him. Masterson’s close friend, Luke Watson, suggested that he should take care of Jane Doe #1. Watsonis the son of Susan Watson, President of Defendant CCI. Defendant Masterson insisted that he take Jane Doe #1 and proceeded to pick up Jane Doe #1 whoprotested Masterson trying to carry herupstairs. 129. Jane Doe #1 was disoriented and unable to stand on her own. Masterson put Jane Doe #1 in front of the toilet and stuck his fingers down her throat to induce vomiting. He then undressed her and put her in the shower where he handled her very aggressively and sexually assaulted her. Jane Doe #1 was intermittently unconscious. Masterson then dragged Jane Doe #1 from the showerand threw her onto his bed where she passed out. 130. Jane Doe #1 awoke to Defendant Masterson raping her. She attempted to fight him off by shoving a pillow into his face, but he pushed it back down onto her face, makingit difficult for her to breathe. 131. Jane Doe #1 attempted to make noise, but Masterson picked up a gun off of his nightstand, pointedit at her, and told her to be quiet. 132. Defendant Masterson held Jane Doe #1 downand anally assaulted her. Masterson only stopped when heheard a voice at the bedroom door and wentto investigate. 24 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo wo NI BD A fF YW WN 10 1] 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 28 133. Jane Doe #1 doesnotspecifically recall when, but she recalls at one point escaping the bedroom and returning downstairs. She recalls Defendant Masterson and Watson grabbing her to bring her back up to Masterson’s bedroom. 134. Jane Doe #1 recalls crawling into the bedroom closet and passing out. She next recalls waking up the next morning naked and hiding inthe closet. 135. Although not by Jane Doe #1, this sexual assault was reported to Defendant CSI. Unbeknownst to Jane Doe #1, a portion of the events leading to the April 24-25, 2003, sexual assault were witnessed by an individual named D.P. (the same D.P. that would later contact Plaintiff Bixler and inform her she was not Defendant Masterson’s only assault victim). D.P. was concerned about Jane Doe #1’s condition when he saw Mastersoncarrying herupthe stairs. D.P. saw Jane Doe #1 approximately “about an houror an hour andahalf later” when she came up to him with wet hair and bare feet and said “Oh my God Danny just raped me.” D,P. also observed Masterson and Watsontrying to get Jane Doe #1 back upstairs. 136. D.P., who was a Scientologist at the time, was called into the Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre within days of the sexual assault. He was confronted by Defendant CCI Ethics Officer Miranda Scoggins and told “in no uncertain terms” that Masterson “had not done anything” to Jane Doe #1. He wastold that Jane Doe #1 was “doing ethics handlingsto help her.” D.P., tried to do as he was told but would remain “haunted” by what he saw for years until he became the connection between Jane Doe #1 and Plaintiff Bixler. 137. In May of 2003, Jane Doe #1 reported her assault to her Ethics Officer, Julian Swartz. Swartz is an Ethics Officer to many celebrities and other prominent Scientologists and as a result he consistently communicates with the highest levels of Defendant CSI. 138. Jane Doe #1 reported to Swartz what sherecalled at the time about what Masterson had done. She also reported that she hadtold a friend. Swartz instructed Jane Doe #1 to go back to 25 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES oD Oo wn Dn aA & WwW NY N ie) bo NO NO Nw bo ro bdo — _ — pwn — — — — an — oO ~ Oo WN WW WwW — oS oO oo ~ nN in aa ww i) — her friend and tell him that what she said about Masterson wasnottrue and that she was joking. Swartz also told hernot to speak aboutit to anyone andthat it would be handled internally within Scientology. Jane Doe #1 attempted to explain to Swartz that what happened was rape. This infuriated Swartz who insisted to Jane Doe #1 that this was not rape andthat she was “notto use the ‘R’ word again.” 139. Defendant CSI required Jane Doe #1 to begin an ethics program that Swartz designed. It required that she report to him daily and get his permission to travel. It required herto read many policies, including those policies that state it is a “high crime” to report anything criminal or negative about another Scientologist, policies regarding disconnection,”’ policies regarding how one becomes declared a Suppressive Person, and policies that describe what happens to Suppressive Persons. Swartz consistently reminded her not to talk about the sexual assault and repeatedly told her that high ranking officials within CSI were aware of her ethics programming and monitoringit closely. 140. The ethics program designed by Swartz also included frequent and seemingly endless auditing sessions in which Jane Doe #1 was repeatedly asked to admit to “past crimes” that she allegedly committed during previous lifetimes. Jane Doe #1 was pressured into “confessing” to “evil purposes” she had toward Masterson, Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and others. 141. In July 2003, Jane Doe #1 encountered Watson, whom she had not seen since she waslast assaulted by Defendant Masterson with Watson’s assistance. Watson, admitted that he reported the sexual assault directly to Defendant Miscavige. 1 Any member of Scientology whois related to, friends with, or an associate of an SP must immediately disassociate from that person. This policy is known as “disconnection.” Though Scientology claims that this is the individual’s decision, failure to disconnect means that the memberwill be declared a Potential Trouble Source—andultimately an SP—themselves. 26 PLAINTIFFS’? COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES aoa Oo wanNnn an F&f- Ww WY RO RO NR et oOo KFK§ Oo Oo DB NA DB FP W WY 24 25 26 27 28 142. In December of 2003, Officials from the Institutional Defendants discovered that Jane Doe #1 had told friends and family about the sexual assault. She was first ordered to meet with Miranda Scoggins and then Swartz. She was handed a “non-enturbulation order,” a formal censure that precedes a Scientologist being declared a suppressive person. She wastold that if she continued to talk about the assault, she would instantly be declared a suppressive person and would be subject to Fair Game. 143. In January 2004, Jane Doe #1 was made to undergo “security checks” or “sec checks” which are used by the Institutional Defendants as a form of investigation. Jane Doe #1 was subjected to intense auditing that included reading reports written about her sexual assault, including those written by Watson and Masterson. Defendant Masterson’s included admissions to the Institutional Defendants about the sexual assault. Despite Defendant Masterson’s and Watson’s admissions, the Institutional Defendants and Defendant Miscavige never took negative action against Defendant Masterson. 144. At the conclusion of this “sec check,” Jane Doe #1 was forced to sit in a room alone with Masterson, the man who sexually assaulted her, at the direction of the Institutional Defendants so that they could “clear the air.” 145. In January 2004, Jane Doe #1’s mother, who is a Scientologist, wrote a letter to Tammy Wilkoff, an official with Defendant RTC.In it, she detailed the sexual assaults committed against Jane Doe #1 and the woefully inadequate response from the Institutional Defendants. She detailed a numberofdisturbing reports written about the assault and how CSI and/or CCI was failing to address it. She also wrote that she believed the non-enturbulation order entered against Jane Doe #1 was intended tosuppress information related to her assault from being made known. She also related that she learned Shaffer had written a report concerning the sexual assault to the Institutional Defendants the day after it occurred. 27 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo Oo NY DBD an Fe WY WD 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 zl 23 24 25 26 27 28 146. In March 2004,frustrated with the lack of progress after her January 2004 letter, Jane Doe #1’s motherwrote anotherletter, this time directly to Defendant Miscavige. She attached her January 2004 letter and demanded that Miscavige act. She detailed admissions by Masterson and Watson, as well as inconsistencies in their account of what had occurred. 147. In responseto these letters Jane Doe #1’s non-enturbulation order waslifted and she wasgivenfree auditing by the Institutional Defendants. 148. Jane Doe #1 received letter on April 21, 2004, from Defendant CSI International Justice Chief Mike Ellis reminding her of the written policy in Scientology that it is a “Suppressive Act” to report a fellow Scientologist in good standingto civil authorities. 149. On June 6, 2004, despite more than a year of Institutional Defendants and their agents trying to convince Jane Doe #1 she was not raped, Jane Doe #1 reported the sexual assault to the Los Angeles Police Department. Defendants mobilized against Jane Doe #1 to ensure no charges werefiled. This included convincing D.P., a critical witness to a criminal prosecution, that nothing wrongor criminal had occurred. 150. After her report to LAPD, Kendrick Moxon,a partner from Moxonand Bowles,the law firm that exclusively represents the interests of the Institutional Defendants and its affiliate organizations, arrived to Jane Doe #1’s parents’ home while she was also present. The attorney carried with him a letter, written by Defendant Masterson, where he stated wordsto the effect of “if you got hurt, sorry you got hurt.” Jane Doe #1 was astonished that this is how Masterson attempted to apologize for raping her. Jane Doe #1 wastold that she was not allowed to keep the letter. Moxon also stated that Swartz would be contacting Jane Doe #1 to broker a meeting between Jane Doe #1 and anattorney for Masterson, which Swartz did. 151. In 2016, Jane Doe #1 learned that Plaintiff Bixler was seeking to contact her. Jane Doe #1 connected with Plaintiff Bixler and told Plaintiff Bixler about the assault by Masterson. 28 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo Oo ANY DH Fe W YO BO NO bP BP KR RO ROR Re ee a DN mA BP WO YP YK COT UO Bn DBA Fe WY NY KF O&O 28 Jane Doe #1 contacted the Los Angeles Police Department to re-open the investigation into her previously reported sexual assault. (The Institutional Defendants’ Fair Gaming Campaign Against Plaintiff Jane Doe #1) 152. As aresult of reporting her sexual assault to the police, Jane Doe #1 was ultimately declared a “suppressive person”by the Institutional Defendants. 153. After Jane Doe #1 contactedthe police for the second time, Defendants carried out an intense fair game campaign againsther. 154. Upon information and belief, all the following-described acts of harassment, surveillance, and/or stalking were carried out by or at the direction of Defendants’ employees, agents, and/or representatives. 155. From late 2016 to present, Jane Doe #1 has received hundreds of phonecalls and text messages from unknown numbers. On oneoccasion, Jane Doe #1 answered and a man’s voice asked if Jane Doe #1 was “scared” before the call was quickly terminated. | 156. In November of 2016, Jane Doe #1 was followed and surveilled by Defendants’ agent Michelle Miskovich. Miskovich followed Jane Doe #1 to a Best Buy and proceeded to follow her into the store. After this instance, Miskovich contacted a reporter to claim thatPlaintiffs were fabricating their claims against Masterson. Several monthslater, Miskovich contacted B.S., a witness to Jane Doe #1’s sexualassault, in an attempt to dissuade B.S. from speaking with police. 157. Defendants had others attempt to dissuade B.S. fromtelling the truth. Forinstance, Vanessa Mooney, who claimed to B.S. that Jane Doe #1 was fabricating her claims against Masterson. 158. Jane Doe #1 observed an SUVsitting outside of her home on many occasions for long periods of time. Jane Doe #1 observed the Defendants’ agent driver of the SUV photographing herwith his cell phone. 29 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Go OD PON DN HA Fe WY HY eet Se Ww po — 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ae 24 25 26 27 28 159. In March of 2017, a blog was posted online publicly revealing the existence of an LAPDinvestigation into Defendant Mastersonas result of reports of sexual abuse. 160. In March and April of 2017, Jane Doe #1’s mother, a Scientologist, called Jane Doe #1 many times and told Jane Doe #1 that Jane Doe #1 is being followed and hertrash is being taken. Jane Doe #1’s trash has in fact been frequently stolen. She has also observed people following her on manyoccasions. 161. From April of 2017 through June of 2018, Jane Doe #1 frequently awoke to find all her car doors and trunk open. 162. In March of 2017, Jane Doe #1’s car was broken into in front of her home and two debit cards were stolen. The accounts linked to those cards were then over-drafted in the middle of the night. 163. On manyoccasions, Jane Doe #1 observed hertrash being dumpedinto the back of a vehicle. | 164. In April of 2017, Jane Doe #1 noticed she was frequently being followed. 165. Beginning in March 2018, Jane Doe #1 observed people frequently parking outside of her family home for hours and looking into her windows. On one occasion, Jane Doe #1 confronted an agent of the Defendants, a woman who wassurveilling her home. Beginning in May 2018, the woman wouldstand outside the curtilage of Jane Doe #1’s homeat night andstare at the property. The woman would also rifle through Jane Doe #1’s trash. On certain evenings, the woman would use a flashlight and point the beam into various windows of the homeincluding into the bedrooms of Jane Doe #1’s children. The womanalso followed Jane Doe #1 in public during the day including to Jane Doe #1’s hair salon where she stood outside the windowstaring at Jane Doe #1. During the summer of 2018, Jane Doe #1 went on an extended vacation and the woman no longer stood outside her house. When Jane Doe #1 returned, so did the woman. One 30 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo fe NI DB WA Se W HN Bete DoD Oo DB NIN Down FP W NY KF CO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 evening when Jane Doe #1 observed the woman stalking her outside her house she contacted LAPD whothen followed the woman to her own residence. The womanprovided a fake name to LAPD. The woman was later identified by police, despite her initially producing a false identification. 166. In and around September of 2018, Defendants’ agent Kathy Gold started publicly threatening Plaintiffs and their families. Gold threatened to commit serious and violent crimes against Plaintiffs, including murder. Gold accused Plaintiffs of being religious bigots andliars. 167. In January of 2019, Jane Doe #1 was at an appointment with an accountant. When she left the appointment and was walking to her car, she was accosted by two agents of the Defendants, a male and female. They wereyelling at her and threatening herlife. The male spat on Jane Doe #1’s windshield as she fled the parking lot. Jane Doe #1 later found out that a major tenant that shares the building with her accountant is a company run by a Scientologist. She was able to use the company website to identify the two individuals that accosted her and threatened her life. Both are Scientologists. 168. In March of 2019, Jane Doe #1 was followedinto a grocery store by a man in a Sea Org uniform. 169. In March of 2019, Jane Doe #1 observed that the home adjacentto the rear of her property trimmed backa tree that had secluded Jane Doe #1’s home. After the tree was trimmed, Jane Doe #1’s home was nowvisible from the neighboring property. Aroundthis time, Jane Doe #1’s cell phone map application would frequently malfunction andredirect herto the neighboring property instead of her own home. Additionally, Jane Doe #1’s husband observed a manstanding at the property line watching Jane Doe #1’s family home. When Jane Doe #1’s husband confronted him, the man fled back to the neighboring property. Jane Doe #1 later discovered that the property is owned by Scientologists, and their son, who is a Sea Org Member, resides at that 31 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo fo NI DUH FP W YP o DT WO A BR WOW NH KF DOD OD we nN KD NH FF W NY - O&O property. Jane Doe #1 learned that the son only moved into the property after she reported her sexual assault by Mastersonto police for the secondtime. 170. In June of 2019, a tree that partially obstructed the view of Jane Doe #1’s home from the neighboring property was poisonedat the root. Jane Doe #1 consulted with a gardener who informed her of the poisoning and advised her to cut downthe tree. In doing so, Jane Doe #1°s property caneasily be seen from herneighbor’s property, the same homedescribed above. 171. Also during this time period, Jane Doe #1 found phallic clay objects had been thrown in her backyard. 172. Jane Doe #1 has experienced variousacts of fraud committed against her including prescription fraud. She has also experienced a host of issues with technology outside of that detailed above including but not limited to having her cellular devices connect to other devices that she does not own and has never heard of as well as hearing voices, noises, and other interference in the background of phonecalls being made fromhercellular devices. 173. To this day, Jane Doe #1 continues to be threatened, harassed, stalked, and surveilled. (Plaintiff Marie Bobette Riales’ Background with Scientology and Danny Masterson) 174. Plaintiff Marie Bobette Riales (hereinafter Plaintiff Riales) met Daniel Masterson in 2002 at a party in Palm Beach, Florida. They soon began dating and spending all their time together. 175. Plaintiff Riales never became involved with the Church of Scientology but was aware that Masterson wasa Scientologist. 176. Plaintiff Riales noticed that whenever Defendant Masterson would make or serve her drinks she would black out frequently and wake up unable to rememberanything about the night before. 32 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo Ceo NY DB WA FS WW NY wb wo NH NY KY NY NY N NN YF YH FF FP FF Fee lS co NO A FB Ww NY KF DOD ODO ON DH FF Ww YN FF O&O 177. Plaintiff Riales eventually realized that this was likely caused by Masterson druggingher drinks so that he could sexually assault her. 178. On or around June 22, 2003, Plaintiff Riales attended an awards ceremony with Masterson in Toronto, Canada. That night, Plaintiff Riales woke up in their hotel roomto find Masterson having sex with her. She felt incapacitated andfell in and out of consciousness during the assault. 179. The following morning she had swollen and sore genitals and no recollection of how shereceived the injuries. 180. Masterson continued to sexually assault Plaintiff Riales in a similar manner throughouttheir relationship. 181. On numerous occasions when Plaintiff Riales spent the night with Masterson, whether it was at his home in California, his homes elsewhere, or in hotels while traveling, Plaintiff Riales would wake up to Masterson having sex with her. 182. Sometimes during these assaults, Plaintiff Riales would attempt to push Masterson off of her, but she could often barely move her armsfrom being so weak and disoriented. 183. If Plaintiff Riales succeeded in raising her arms enough to push Masterson, he would just push her arms back down on the bed and continue assaulting her. 184. Defendant Masterson assaulted Plaintiff Riales almost nightly until the end of their relationship. 185. Plaintiff Riales stopped seeing Masterson in 2004. (The Institutional Defendants’s Fair Gaming Campaign Against Plaintiff Riales) 186. In April of 2017, Plaintiff Riales reported the assault to the Los Angeles Police Department. Once Plaintiff Riales spoke to police, Defendants’ began an intense fair gaming campaign againsther. 33 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES oy Oo re NI DB OA FF WD WD bo nN wo NO bo dO bho bo nN — — — — — — _ — — — oO ~ ON nr > Ww i) — oS \O Co — CON Nn S W i) —_ Oo 187. Upon information and belief, all the following-described acts of harassment, surveillance, and/or stalking were carried out by or at the direction of Defendants’ employees, agents, and/or representatives. 188. Since going to the police, the Defendants have repeatedly stolen Plaintiff Riales’s trash. 189. The Defendants have frequently and consistently followed and surveilled her. 190. Plaintiff Riales’s food truck that she owned and operated was vandalized by Defendants’ agents. On more than one occasion unknownindividuals attempted to break into her food truck. There were also false reviews posted about her food truck business. An unknown individual or individuals attempted to list her food truckforsale. 191. Plaintiff Riales’s neighbor observed a man in her driveway taking pictures of Plaintiff Riales’s food truck, car, license plates, and home.Plaintiff Riales’s neighbor confronted him,and he fled. 192. That night, at approximately 1:00 a.m., the window to a room where Plaintiff Riales’s 13 year-old child slept was shattered. 193. On at least one occasion Plaintiff Riales has confronted men standing on her property taking pictures of her home. The men flee when confronted. 194. On one occasion, shortly after speaking with police, Plaintiff Riales was at a restaurant with friends whenthetable next to her began taunting Plaintiff Riales by talking loudly of anal sex and rape. WhenPlaintiff Riales left the restaurant, the table left and followedherto her car, 195. Onseveral occasions, Plaintiff Riales found all the doors of her car were opened. 34 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo wo NY no NO —& WD PO KF i) tO bo ro ho nN bo bho — bt — — — — —_ — roy a ~] ON Wn - Qo N = Oo \o Co —~s [o> Wn > Loe) N — oS 1)oO 196. In July of 2018, Plaintiff Riales went on vacation with her children to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Every evening Plaintiff Riales observed people on a nearby balcony taking photosofher. 197. In and around September of 2018, Defendants’ agent, Scientologist Kathy Gold, started publicly threatening Plaintiffs and their families. Gold threatened to commit serious and violent crimes against Plaintiffs including murder. Gold accused Plaintiffs of being religious bigots and liars. 198. Since Decemberof 2018 through the present, Plaintiff Riales has observed people outside her homeat all hours who would remain near her property and watch her. If Plaintiff Riales left her property, they would follow. Additionally, on many occasions, Plaintiff Riales has beenfollowed by strangers throughout her town orto the homesofherfriends and family.Plaintiff Riales’ phone and computer have been hacked repeatedly, and she has experienced technological issues with various devices she has purchased. Various accounts belonging to her, including her email account, have been hacked. (Plaintiff Jane Doe #2’s Background with Scientology and Danny Masterson) 199. Jane Doe #2 became a memberofthe Church of Scientology when she wasa child. 200. Jane Doe #2 becameclose friends with Daniel Masterson’s brother, Chris, and eventually met Masterson through mutualfriends and her auditing at CCI. 201. Years after beginning her auditing at CCI, Jane Doe #2 was living with Ilaria Urbinati, who she had met through the Church of Scientology. Urbinati invited Jane Doe #2 to join her for an evening with Masterson and Masterson’s friend Luke Watson. This wasthefirst time Jane Doe #2 spent any significant time with Masterson in a small group. 202. At the end of the evening Defendant Masterson requested Jane Doe #2’s phone number, which she gave him. 35 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo we NY Dw FP W NY ro bo bh bo rN nh bo bo bo — jena _— _ —y — pi port —" —" CO | oO Nn ae uo Ww _ SS \© oO —~ a WN -— uo bo ont Oo 203. A few days later, Jane Doe #2 met Masterson at his home. Immediately upon her arrival he served her a drink. Masterson demanded that Jane Doe #2 removeherclothes and get into his Jacuzzi tub. Jane Doe #2 felt the effects of the alcohol Masterson had provided butata far faster rate than she had ever experienced. Masterson began to remove Jane Doe #2’s clothes and enticed her into the Jacuzzi tub. Masterson also began kissing Jane Doe #2. 204. Next, Masterson demandedthat Jane Doe #2 go into his shower. Masterson ushered her to the upstairs of his home. 205. Masterson then sexually assaulted Jane Doe #2 in the showerandin his bedroom. 206. Jane Doe #2 could not have, and in fact did not consent to sex with Defendant Masterson. Defendant Masterson knew she did not consent and sexually assaulted her nonetheless. 207. At the time it occurred, Jane Doe #2 only confided in two friends about the sexual assault, and she soon began withdrawing from Scientology. Jane Doe #2 understood from her Scientology coursework that she would not be permitted to report the assault to civil authorities outside of Scientology. She also understood that reporting the assault to Scientology would not result in any action being taken except to shame and harassher. 208. The Church attempted to draw Jane Doe #2 back in by offering her free auditing sessions, but by 2004 she ceased practicing Scientology completely. 209. Jane Doe #2 did not experience persistent harassment orstalking from the Church at first because she had not spoken openly about being sexually assaulted by Masterson and otherwise remained quiet about herhistory with Scientology. 210. In 2011, Jane Doe #2 disclosed to Masterson’s former personalassistant, Brie Shaffer, that Masterson had sexually assaulted her because she believed that Shaffer was no longer 36 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo wo NI Dn F&F W WN 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 associating with Masterson. Soon after the disclosure many Scientologists began to disconnect from Jane Doe #2. (The Institutional Defendant’s Fair Gaming Campaign Against Jane Doe #2) 211. In 2017, Jane Doe #2 disclosed the assault to the Los Angeles Police Department. Since speaking with police, Defendants have subjected Jane Doe #2 to a fair gaming campaign to silence Jane Doe #2. 212. Upon information and belief, all the following-described acts of harassment, surveillance, and/or stalking were carried out by or at the direction of Defendants’ employees, agents, and/or representatives. 213. Jane Doe #2 has experienced substantial issues with her cell phone and computer which suggest that her phone and computer may have been hacked or otherwise compromised. During phone calls wherein she discussed the abuse, she heard beeping,interference, or the calls would abruptly drop. 214. Jane Doe #2 repeatedly received phone calls and text messages from numbers associated with the Sea Org. She frequently received voicemails from Defendants’ agents urging herto call them to get involved with Scientology. The text messages urged Jane Doe #2 to return to Scientology to help her cope with the death of her father by suicide. Her father’s death had occurred yearsearlier. 215. Jane Doe #2 has experienced vandalism of hercar. In these instances, there were no other cars surrounding hers that were vandalized, demonstrating the vandalism wastargeted at Jane Doe #2. 216. Jane Doe #2 has been harassed via social media by Defendants’ agents including being accusedofserious criminal offenses. 37 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo fF INI Dn A FP W NP NO N N bo NO Nw ND dO bho — —y fot — — _ _ — _ — oo ~ ON nN - wo Nw — = Oo oO ~~ nN WG — Wo i) —_ oS 217. In January of 2017, Jane Doe #2 wasat a grocery store when Urbanati, who had since become business partner of Defendant Masterson’s, approached Jane Doe #2 andtold Jane Doe #2 that Leah Remini was putting Jane Doe #2 “upto this,” and asked why Jane Doe #2 and Plaintiff Bixler were “doing this to Danny?” She went on to attempt to interrogate Jane Doe #2 about the facts of her sexual assault andtell Jane Doe #2 that no one believed her account andthat Plaintiff Bixler was “insane.” 218. In and around September of 2018, Defendants’ agent, Scientologist Kathy Gold, started publicly threatening Plaintiffs and their families. Gold threatened to commit serious and violent crimes against Plaintiffs including murder. Gold accused Plaintiffs of being religious bigots andliars. 219. On March8, 2019, Jane Doe #2 madeapostto social media in which she called on the FBI to investigate Scientology. In the days immediately following, Defendants’ agents had approximately $4,000.00 of merchandise delivered to Jane Doe #2’s house from Victoria Secret and vitamin suppliers using hercredit card. She also had series of fraudulenttransactions within her bank account that she was not making. 220. From the time Jane Doe #2 disclosed the assault to law enforcement through the present, Jane Doe #2 has been stalked, —e| and intimidated by Defendants who seek to silence herandin retaliation for reporting her abuse. 221. As aresult of the harassment she has suffered, Jane Doe #2 has rarely left the house in the two yearssince reporting the sexual assault to law enforcement. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Stalking—Civil Code § 1708.7) 222. Plaintiffs incorporate and reference the averments contained aboveas though fully set forth herein. 38 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ww won non vn ->- W WN 10 1] 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 223. Defendants stalked Plaintiffs and engaged in the pattern of conductoutlined above with the intent to follow, alarm, place undersurveillance, and harass the Plaintiffs. 224. Defendants followed Plaintiffs online and in person pertheir codified “Fair Game” practices, thus placing Plaintiffs under surveillance with the intent to alarm, threaten, and harass Plaintiffs. 225. Asa result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs reasonably feared for their safety and the safety of their immediate family, and Plaintiffs suffered substantial emotional distress. The Defendants’ pattern of conduct outlined above would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotionaldistress. 226. Defendants madecredible threats against the Plaintiffs with the intent to cause the Plaintiffs and their immediate family members to fear for their safety and/or with reckless disregard for the safety of the Plaintiffs and their immediate family members. 227. Plaintiffs demanded the Defendants cease their behavior. The Defendants persisted in their pattern of conduct and warned Plaintiffs that further public complaints about them would only increase the severity of their fair gaming campaign. 228. Any further attempts to clearly and definitively demand the Defendants cease their behavior were impractical and/or unsafe due to the power exerted by the Defendants over Plaintiffs and the Defendants intractable position on the Plaintiffs being “fair game” for their tactics. 229. Defendants knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to: (1) obstruct justice by withholding the facts of Masterson’s sexual assaults from civil authorities: (2) stalk Plaintiffs; (3) physically and constructively invade the Plaintiffs’ privacy (see below); 39 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and/or (4) intentionally inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiffs (see below). The conspiracy continuesto this day.” 230. In furtherance of said conspiracy and agreement, Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct, including but not limited to information suppression, coercion, deception, stalking, harassment, surveillance, threats, vandalism,theft, and/or fraud. 231. Defendants’ actions, set forth in the preceding paragraphs and incorporated herein, were in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and committed in furtherance of the aforementioned conspiracies and agreements. Moreover, each of the aforementioned Defendants lent aid and encouragement and knowingly financed, ratified, and/or adopted the acts of the other. As a proximateresult of the wrongful acts hereinalleged, Plaintiffs have suffered significant damage to be determinedattrial. 232. These acts constituted malicious conduct which wascarried on by said Defendants with willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights with the intention of willfully concealing information that could have prevented sexual assaults against Plaintiffs Chrissie Bixler, Marie Riales, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, or others yet unknown, as well as harassing and silencing Plaintiffs. The conduct at issue was and continues to be despicable and has and continues to subject Plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship and justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Accordingly, punitive damages should be awarded against Defendants to punish them and deter them and other such persons from committing such wrongful and malicious acts in the future. 233. These acts constituted malicious conduct which wascarried on bysaid Defendants with willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights with the intention of willfully concealing information that could have prevented sexual assaults against Plaintiffs Chrissie Bixler, Marie *2 Paragraphs 230 through 232 are herein realleged and apply to each and every Cause of Action. 40 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo CO NI Dn Wn F&F W LY bo tO bo 1) NO bo bo NO nN ii ht — —_ _ — — — — — co ~ oO nN a Ow tw — oS \O oo ~ a nN > Ww Nw — CS Riales, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, or others yet unknown, as well as harassing and silencing Plaintiffs. The conduct at issue was and continues to be despicable and has and continues to subject Plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship andjustifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Accordingly, punitive damages should be awarded against Defendants to punish them and deter them and other such persons from committing such wrongful and malicious acts in the future. 234. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants in the form of all general and special damages in a sum to be provenattrial, and exemplary and punitive damagesas allowed by law and in a sumto be provenattrial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Physical Invasion of Privacy—Civ. Code § 1708.8) 235. Plaintiffs incorporate and reference the averments contained aboveas thoughfully set forth herein. 236. As stated above, Defendants and their agents placed Plaintiffs under surveillance and in doing so, trespassed on their property to take photos, looked in Plaintiffs’ windows, and electronically compromised their security systems, and/or phones, and/or computers, and/or other digital devices. 237. Defendants committed the aforementioned trespass in a highly offensive and unreasonable manner, without permission and with the intention of harming Plaintiffs and interfering in their private affairs and/or intruding upon Plaintiffs’ privacy and/or capturing visual images, video recording, or sound recording of Plaintiffs engaging in private, personal, and/or familial activities. 238. Asa result of Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiffs reasonably feared for their safety and the safety of their family, and Plaintiffs suffered substantial emotionaldistress. 4] PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo Oo NI DB Wn FP WD YO KF BRO Rete F& CO OO DB NI WB Wn F&F W NYO KF OC 23 24 25 26 27 28 239. These acts constituted malicious conduct which was carried on by said Defendants with willful and consciousdisregard for Plaintiffs’ rights with the intention of willfully concealing information that could have prevented sexual assaults against Plaintiffs Chrissie Bixler, Marie Riales, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, or others yet unknown, as well as harassing and silencing Plaintiffs. The conduct at issue was and continues to be despicable and has and continues to subject Plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship and justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Accordingly, punitive damages should be awarded against Defendants to punish them and deter them and other such persons from committing such wrongful and malicious acts in the future. 240. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants in the form of all general and special damages in a sum to beprovenattrial, and exemplary and punitive damagesas allowed by law and in a sum to be provenattrial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive Invasion of Privacy—Civil Code § 1708.8) 241. Plaintiffs incorporate and reference the averments contained aboveas thoughfully set forth herein. 242. As stated above, Defendants and their agents placed Plaintiffs under surveillance and in doing so, used devices to capture image and soundrecordings or other physical impressions which, because of such device’s use, allowed Defendants to avoid trespassing upon Plaintiffs’ land while still being able to capture such recordings and impressions. 243. Defendants, in a mannerthat is highly offensive and unreasonable, used a recording device with the intention of harming Plaintiffs by interfering in their private affairs and/or intruding upon Plaintiffs’ privacy and/or capturing visual images, video recording, or sound recording of Plaintiff engaging in private, personal, and/or familial activities. 42 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo Oo IN DBD OO FP WY YN ee ee eeel GT OD ONY DoH Fe W YP KF OS 244. As aresult of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs reasonably feared for their safety and the safety of their family, and Plaintiffs suffered substantial emotional distress. 245. These acts constituted malicious conduct which was carried on by said Defendants with willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights with the intention of willfully concealing information that could have prevented sexual assaults against Plaintiffs Chrissie Bixler, Marie Riales, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2 or others yet unknown, as well as harassing and silencing Plaintiffs. The conduct at issue was and continues to be despicable and has and continues to subject Plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship and justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Accordingly, punitive damages should be awarded against Defendants to punish them and deter them and other such persons from committing such wrongful and malicious acts in the future. 246. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants in the form of all general and special damagesin a sum to be provenattrial, and exemplary and punitive damages as allowed by law and in a sum to be provenattrial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 247. Plaintiffs incorporate and reference the averments contained above as though fully set forth herein. 248. Defendants surveilled, harassed, stalked, and photographed Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants trespassed on Plaintiffs’ personal property, looked in windows, followed andstalked, hacked personal online accounts and emails, engaged in surveillance of and interference with Plaintiffs’ daily lives, and/or called, and/or texted, and/or otherwise attempted to communicate repeatedly. 249. Defendants’ aforementioned conduct was extreme and outrageous. 43 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo wo ny DH FF WY NY KF bd Nw ie) N N Nw i) No dO —_ — — — — — jms _— —_ — oo ~~ a Nn > Ww tO — Oo \O co ~ ON Nn > Ww NO — So 250. Defendants acted with reckless disregard and/or intention that their conduct would cause Plaintiffs severe emotionaldistress. 251. The aforesaid outrageous conduct caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress, suffering, aguish, anxiety, humiliation, and shame. 252. These acts constituted malicious vowel which wascarried on by said Defendants with willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights with the intention of willfully concealing information that could have prevented sexual assaults against Plaintiffs Chrissie Bixler, Marie Riales, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2 or others yet unknown, as well as harassing and silencing Plaintiffs. The conduct at issue was and continues to be despicable and has and continues to subject Plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship and justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Accordingly, punitive damages should be awarded against Defendants to punish them and deter them and other such persons from committing such wrongful and malicious acts in the future. 253. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants in the form of all general and special damages in a sum to be provenattrial, and exemplary and punitive damagesas allowed by law and in a sumto be provenattrial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Loss of Consortium as to Plaintiff Cedric Bixler-Zavala Only) 254. Plaintiffs incorporates and references the averments contained above as though fully set forth herein. 255. Plaintiff Cedric Bixler-Zavala is lawfully married to Plaintiff Chrissie Bixler. Plaintiff Chrissie Bixler was injured by Defendants’ above-described tortious conduct. Plaintiff Cedric Bixler-Zavala has suffered loss of consortium due to a loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, society, sexual relations, and moral support; he has further suffered lost wages and earning capacity and was further damaged in having to serve as Plaintiff Bixler's 44 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Oo oOo AN DB On FP W WN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 2 26 28 caretaker, which services constitute a special damageto Plaintiff Bixler. The losses suffered by Plaintiff Cedric Bixler-Zavala were proximately caused by Defendants’ tortious conduct, as described herein, through which his wife was tortuously injured. 256. Wherefore, Plaintiff Cedric Bixler-Zavala prays for judgment against Defendantsin the form of all general and special damages in a sum to be provenattrial, and exemplary and punitive damagesas allowed by law and in a sum to be provenattrial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them as followsas to each causeofaction: 1. For general damages; 2. For special damages and compensatory for medical, hospital, and incidental expenses; 3. For injunctive relief pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1770 and 1780(a) and(e); 4. For punitive/exemplary damages according to proof and pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1708.5(3)(b) and 1782(2); 5. For attorneys’ fees and/or penalties pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1708.5(3)(b) and 1782(2) and Civil Code §§ 51.7, 51, and 52.4, and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; 6. For treble damages pursuant to California Penal Code §236.1 and California Civil Code § 52.5; 7. Pre -and post-judgment interest; 8. For costs of suit herein incurred; and 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. If M1 M1 H// 45 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES — Co Oo NHN Dn nO FF WW NWN NO Nw NO i) NO tw No bo nN _— _— — — — —_ — meer — jm Co ~~] Oo WN _ Ww i] — So No} oo ~~ On nN oa Ww bo _ S&S JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs hereby demanda trial by jury. Dated: August 21, 2019 THOMPSON LAW OFFICES,P.C. » Robert Met W. Thompson 2— Attorney for Plaintiffs CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER; CEDRIC BIXLER￾ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARTE BOBETTERIALES;and JANE DOE #2 46 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ATTACHMENT A Beloware additional attorneys representing Plaintiffs: Jeffrey P. Fritz, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) SOLOFF & ZERVANOS,P.C. 1525 LocustStreet, 8" Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 732-2260 / Fax: (215) 732-2289 Marci Hamilton, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) University of Pennsylvania’ Fox-Fels Building 3814 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Tel: (215) 353-8984 / Fax: (215) 493-1094 Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) Lea P. Bucciero (Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) PODHURST ORSECK,P.A. One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-2800 / Fax: (305) 358-2382 1 This addressis solely for delivery purposes. It does not indicate supportfor any lawsuit or case by the University of Pennsylvania.