§   What's New   ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ^® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

CT 4236

THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES IS GRANTED AS TO
THE FOURTH AND SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION AND DENIED AS TO THE ELEVENTH CAUSE
OF ACTION.

AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION, DEFENDANT FAILS TO RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE AS TO
WHETHER THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IS INVALID. DEFENDANT RELIES ON
THE LAW AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1978. (SEE UNITED SAV. & LOAN ASSN.
V. REEDER DEV. CORP. (1976) 57 CAL.APP.3D 282 AND EARLIER VERSIONS OF CIV.
CODE, §§ 1670 AND 1671.) THE LAW NOW PRESUMES THAT LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
PROVISIONS ARE "VALID UNLESS THE PARTY SEEKING TO INVALIDATE THE PROVISION
ESTABLISHES THAT THE PROVISION WAS UNREASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
EXISTING AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS MADE." (CIV. CODE, § 1671, SUBD.
(b).) DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE IN
THAT REGARD. ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT STATES IN HIS DECLARATION THAT HE WAS NOT
INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATING THE PROVISION (SEE D'S EX. 1, ¶12), HE GOES ON TO
STATE THAT HE DISCUSSED THE PROVISION WITH TWO ATTORNEYS BEFORE SIGNING THE
AGREEMENT. (ID., ¶¶12-13.) THUS, HE CLEARLY KNEW OF THE PROVISION YET
CHOSE TO SIGN IT. HE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT HE HAD UNEQUAL BARGAINING POWER OR
THAT HE MADE ANY EFFORTS TO BARGAIN OR NEGOTIATE WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROVISION. (SEE H. S. PERLIN CO. V. MORSE SIGNAL DEVICES (1989) 209
CAL.APP.3D 1289.) DEFENDANT NEXT STATES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ACTUAL DAMAGES
ARE ZERO. (D'S EX. 1, ¶12.) HOWEVER, "THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ACTUALLY
SUFFERED HAS NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
PROVISION..." (SEE LAW REVISION COMMISSION COMMENT TO § 1671.) FINALLY,
DEFENDANT POINTS TO THE FACT THAT OTHER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS CONTAIN A
$10,000 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION. (SEE D'S EXS. 2C AND 2D.) THIS
ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE IN THAT DEFENDANT HAS NOT
SHOWN THAT CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT CHANGE BETWEEN 12/86 AND 4/87 AND THAT
THOSE SETTLING PARTIES STAND IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR POSITION TO DEFENDANT
(I.E., THAT THEY WERE AS HIGH UP IN THE ORGANIZATION AND COULD CAUSE AS
MUCH DAMAGE BY SPEAKING OUT AGAINST PLAINTIFF OR THAT THEY HAVE/HAD ACCESS
TO AS MUCH INFORMATION AS DEFENDANT).

- page break -

CT 4237

DEFENDANT ALSO HAS NOT RAISED A TRIABLE ISSUE REGARDING DURESS.
DEFENDANT'S OWN DECLARATION SHOWS HE DID NOT EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT UNDER
DURESS IN THAT IT SHOWS THAT HE CAREFULLY WEIGHED HIS OPTIONS. (SEE D'S
EX. 1, ¶10.) IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SHOW THAT HE DID SOMETHING AGAINST HIS
WILL OR HAD "NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO SUCCUMBING." (SEE IN RE MARRIAGE
OF BALTINS (1989) 212 CAL.APP.3D 66, 84.) IN ADDITION, DEFENDANT IS
RELYING ON THE CONDUCT OF A THIRD PARTY (FLYNN) TO ESTABLISH DURESS, YET HE
SETS FORTH NO FACT OR EVIDENCE IN HIS SEPARATE.STATEMENT SHOWING THAT
PLAINTIFF HAD REASON TO KNOW OF THE DURESS. (SEE LEEPER V. BELTRAMI (1959)
53 CAL.2D 195, 206.)

AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION, CONTRARY TO DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT, THE
SUBJECT DECLARATION DOES MORE THAN MERELY AUTHENTICATE DOCUMENTS. (SEE P'S
EX. 1(A) (11) , ¶¶ 1-3.) THE COURT FINDS THAT THE DECLARATION CONSTITUTES A
DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANT'S "EXPERIENCES WITH" PLAINTIFF OR "KNOWLEDGE OR
INFORMATION" CONCERNING PLAINTIFF AND HUBBARD. (SEE P'S EX. 1B, ¶7D.)
DEFENDANT FAILS TO RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE REGARDING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE/
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY DOES NOT
PROHIBIT DEFENDANT FROM DISCLOSING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA OR
OTHER LEGAL PROCESS. (SEE P'S EX. 1B, ¶7H; CONTRAST WITH PEN. CODE, § §
136.1 AND 138, WILLIAMSON V. SUPERIOR COURT (1978) 21 CAL.3D 829, PEOPLE V.
PIC'L (1982) 31 CAL.3D 731.) NOR IS PLAINTIFF IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION
SEEKING TO PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES CONDUCTING
INVESTIGATIONS PURSUANT TO STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. (CONTRAST WITH MARY R.
V. B. & R. CORP. (1983) 149 CAL.APP.3D 308 AND ALLEN V. JORDANOS' INC.
(1975) 52 CAL.APP.3D 160.) EVEN IF A PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT COULD BE
CONSTRUED TO SO PROHIBIT (SEE, E.G., ¶10), PLAINTIFF IS NOT RELYING ON THAT
SECTION. NOR HAS DEFENDANT SHOWN THAT THE PROVISION IS SO SUBSTANTIAL AS
TO RENDER THE ENTIRE CONTRACT ILLEGAL. (CONTRAST WITH ALLEN, SUPRA, 52
CAL.APP.3D AT 166.

- page break -

CT 4238

AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANT FAILS TO RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE
REGARDING THE CNN INTERVIEW. DEFENDANT ADMITTED IN HIS DEPOSITION THAT HIS
CONVERSATION WITH CNN INVOLVED KNOWLEDGE HE HAD GAINED BECAUSE OF HIS YEARS
OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE ORGANIZATION (P'S EX. lA AT 344:1-4), THUS REFUTING
HIS ARGUMENTS THAT HIS STATEMENT WAS BASED ON KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED AFTER THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT HIS INTERVIEW WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE
INSTANT LITIGATION. IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF SET FORTH NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE
IN HIS SEPARATE STATEMENT SHOWING THAT HE COULD DISCLOSE INFORMATION
ACQUIRED AFTER EXECUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR THAT HE COULD MAKE
SUCH STATEMENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF FUTURE LITIGATION. FINALLY, THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE STATEMENT WHICH TIES IT TO EITHER OF THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY
DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT ALSO FAILS TO RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE REGARDING THE
AMERICAN LAWYER INTERVIEW. DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT HE ONLY DISCUSSED THE
INSTANT LITIGATION IS REFUTED BY HIS OWN ADMISSION THAT HE DISCUSSED "THE
PLIGHT OF THE ORGANIZATION [AND) WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO END ITS LEGAL
TROUBLES." (D'S EX. 1D AT 352:15-19.) DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT HIS
DISCUSSION INVOLVED "NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT JUDGE BRECKENRIDGE STATED IN
HIS DECISION IN ARMSTRONG I" IS REFUTED BY HIS ADMISSION THAT HE DID NOT
RECALL DISCUSSING THE BRECKENRIDGE OPINION WITH THE REPORTER. (D'S EX. 1D
AT 358:20-23.) FURTHER, DEFENDANT POINTS TO NOTHING IN JUDGE
BRECKENRIDGE'S OPINION WHICH COINCIDES TO THOSE MATTERS DISCUSSED BY
DEFENDANT.

AS TO THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN THAT DEFENDANT
VIOLATED PARAGRAPH 7D OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THE DECLARATION RELIED
ON BY PLAINTIFF (P'S EX. 1(A)(8)) DOES NOT DISCLOSE DEFENDANTS "EXPERIENCES
WITH THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY [OR] ANY KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION HE MAY
HAVE CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY..."

- page break -

CT 4239

DEFENDANT ARMSTRONG FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION AND EVIDENCE SIX DAYS LATE.
THE COURT DID NOT PERMIT SAME. THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE SUPPLEMENTAL
PAPERS FROM THE FILE IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED.
DEFENDANTS KNEW THE LATENESS OF THE. FILING, SOME SIX DAYS. THERE WAS AMPLE TIME
TO SEEK THE COURT'S PERMISSION FOR A LATE FILING. PERMISSION WAS NOT SOUGHT.
SANCTIONS REQUESTED BY PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO SECTION 437C(i) ARE GRANTED IN THE
AMOUNT OF $700, AS THE COURT FINDS THIS SIX-DAYS LATE FILING TO BE IN BAD FAITH.

[HW] Laurie Bartilson and Andrew Wilson  appearing for
plaintiff; Ford Greene appearing for defendant
Gerald Armstrong. Matter is heard and argued.
Tentative ruling becomes final. Sanctions are to
be paid within 20 days. Motion to strike is granted,
subject papers removed from record and destroyed .
William Benz is appointed as referee.

This document in .pdf format.

§   What's New   ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ^® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §