7/27/2019 175879162 DeCrescenzo vs Scientology Motion for
Summary Judgment Ocr
1/27
.-..::.,.-.....",....,
..
1\.}'T:.......-..
':........, .....
' ~
LLPSan1a Mor{fca.Blvd.
1725 CA 90067
ORIGINALKENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER, LLP1 BERTH. DEIXLER (Bar
No. 70614)10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 17252 Los Angeles,
California 90067Telephone: 310.556.27003 Facsimile:
310.556.2705
4 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD,KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, LLP5
ERIC M. LIEBERMAN (pro hac vice)45 Broadway, Suite 17006 New York,
NY 10006Telephone: 212.254.11117 Facsimile: 212.674.46148 Attorneys
for DEFENDANT CHURCH OFSCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL9
FILEDSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOlJNTV ()i:;" I l)c;;
p.1r.:ict,ESOCT 25 ZOlZ
JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP10 ROBERT E. MANGELS
(Bar No. 48291)MATTHEW D. HINKS (Bar No. 200750)11 1900 A venue of
the Stars, 7th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90067 12 Telephone:
310.203.8080Facsimile: 310.203 .056713Attorneys for DEFENDANT
RELIGIOUS14 TECHNOLOGY CENTER
151617
SUPERIOR COURT OF TH E STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICTLAURA ANN
DeCRESCENZO,18
1920 V.
Plaintiff,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY21 INTERNATIONAL, et al.,22
Defendants.232425262728
Case No. BC411018[Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon.
RonaldSohigian, Dept. 41]DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FORSUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON GROUNDTHAT STATUTES OF I M I T A T W ~ ~ :a:_, nBAR THE
ACTION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,.,%,.,., m ....._
: = : ~ " " Q ~ ~Filed concurrently with e f i f ! : . . f l . t
~ Sltl;meilt : ~and Declaration ofBert ~ j : f f e ~ r.i ~
rr i o . . - ~ o on:- . . . ......_ n ..-Hon. Ronald Sohigian g
5i ::=January 17, 2013 i.; ~ ~8:30 a.m. ~ - ~41 g ~ ~ ; ; ; .IUt Ol
tT1
Judge:Date:Time:Dept.: .... ....,...., ='"" ..Action Filed:
April 2, 2009. July 29, 2013 ....0 -. 0( , . jTrial Date: - ""Q0 3
:
Defendants' Joint Motion For Summary Judgment On Ground That
Statutes Of Limitations Bar The Action
7/27/2019 175879162 DeCrescenzo vs Scientology Motion for
Summary Judgment Ocr
2/27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
.................................................................................................................
1STATEMENT OF THE CASE
.............................................................................................
1A. Prior Proceedings
......................................................................................................
1B. Stateme:r;it OfUncontroverted Facts
..........................................................................
4ARGUMENT .......... ;
..........................................................................................................
12A. Equitable Estoppel Applies Where A Defendant Inequitably Acts
ToInduce A Potential Plaintiff Reasonably To Delay Filing A Timely
LawsuitAnd Where The Plaintiff Institutes The Action Within A
Reasonable TimeAfter The Circumstances Inducing Delay Have Ceased
To Operate ...................... 12B. Defendants Engaged In No
Conduct That Would Equitably Estop Them
From Invoking Their Statute Of Limitations Defenses
........................................... 131. PlaintiffMay Not
Invoke Equitable Estoppel on the Basis ofAllegedRepresentations
That Plaintiff Had Released Her Right to Bring aLawsuit
........................................................................................................
13
a. No Such Representations Were Made
............................................. 13b. Even if
Defendants Made Representations That the ReleasesWaive Plaintiffs
Right to Sue, Such Denials ofLegalLiability Cannot Support a Claim
of Equitable Estoppel.. .............. 13c. . As this Court
Previously Found (a Finding Not Disturbed by
the Court ofAppeal Decision), Defendant Could NotReasonably Rely
Upon the Alleged Misrepresentations ................. 142.
Plaintiff May Not Invoke Equitable Estoppel on the Basis
ofAllegedThreats ofHarassment or "Banishment"
................................................... 16
a. Defendants Made No Such Threats
................................................. 16b. Fear
ofPossible Excommunication Cannot Be the Basis for aFinding
ofEquitable Estoppel..
....................................................... 17
C. Plaintiff Failed To Institute This Action Within A Reasonable
Time AfterThe Alleged Circumstances Inducing Delay Ceased To
Operate ........................... 19CONCLUSION
...................................................................................................................
20
Defendants' Joint Motion For Summary Judgment On Ground That
Statutes OfLimitations Bar The Action
