||||| From: ptsc Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: FAIR ruling (features Lenske) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:05:58 -0500 Organization: ARS: Perhaps the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 112 Path: corp.newsgroups.com!propagator-maxim!feed.newsfeeds.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!news!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: newsfeeds alt.religion.scientology:1273487 From: leevy@delta1.deltanet.com (David Lee) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: FAIR RULING Date: 6 Mar 1995 21:55:44 GMT Lines: 104 Message-ID: <3jg0d0$k6n@alterdial.UU.NET> NNTP-Posting-Host: delta1.deltanet.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Date: June 17, 1987 DEPT. 59 HONORABLE NORMAN R. DOWDS JUDGE HONORABLE J O'NEAL CT ATTENDANT JUDGE PRO TEM C PENS DEPUTY CLERK Deputy Sheriff NONE Reporter CA 001 012 (FREEDOM FOR ALL IN RELIGION, etc) Counsel for MANFRED STANSFIELD, et al., Plaintiff vs (CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIF., Counsel for etc., NORMAN STARKEY, etc., et al., Defendant NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTERS OF 6-11-87 DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT AUTHOR SERVICES INC TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION OF DEFENDANT SHERMAN D. LENSKE FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CCP s.128.5 DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT SHERMAN D. LENSKE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY In this matter heretofore argued and submitted, the Court now rules as follows: Each demurrer is sustained to all causes of action of the first amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 430/10(f). Each cause of action is uncertain in that it does not state who performed the actions for which the various defedants are apparently proposed to be held liable under the doctrine of Respondiat Superior and what acts were performed by each such person and at what time. In oral argument it was asserted by counsel for the plaintiffs that the name of the Church corporation with which the individual plaintiffs were associated changed from time to time, from which it may be inferred that the principal of the agents who performed the acts in question assertedly changed from time to time. At the very least, each defendant is entitled to know the names of the person for whom acts were performed by which asserted agent and when. Also the complaint is uncertain as to which plaintiff had a fiduciary relationship with which defendant and during what period of time and what facts gave rise to the fiduciary relationship. The demurrer of each demurring party is also sustained pursuant to Section 430.10(E) as to the first and second causes of action. As to both causes of action, the demurrer is sustained on the ground of the statute of limitations. It appears from the face of the complaint that the acts complained of occurred beyond the normal period of the statute of limitations. If it is asserted that the fraud and violation of fiduciary relationship was not discovered until some later time, it is necessary to plead when the facts were discovered and sufficient facts from which it would appear that the plaintiffs should not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the alleged misconduct at an earlier date. Also as to the first cause of action, fraud is not pleaded with sufficient particularity. As pointed out in respect of Mr. Lenske's demurrer in respect of the original complaint, it must be alleged what act was performed by what person and when and where, i.e., who said what to whom and when and where. It is recognized that in a class action it is not necessary to plead specifically the acts giving rise to the cause of action with respect to each unnamed member of the plaintiff class, but such particular allegations must certainly be made as to the named plaintiffs. The court does not reach any other pending demurrers and they are ordered off calendar. 30 days to amend. 30 days to respond. The motion of defendant Sherman D. Lenske for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 is granted. The court finds that the action of the plaintiffs in filing the first amended complaint without coming close to complying with the directions of the court given upon the sustaining of Mr. Lenske's demurrer to the original complaint was action taken in bad faith and was frivilous. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay to Mr. Lenske within ten days as the reasonable expenses incurred by moving party as the result of such action. A copy of this minute order is sent via U.S. Mail to: LAWRENCE LEVY & LYLE MIDDLETON, 14724 Ventura Blvd., Suite 7704, Sherman Oaks, Ca 91403 LUBELL & LUBELL, Jonathan W. Lubell, 220 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10001 LENSEK, LENSKE & KELLER, Lawrence E. Keller, 6400 Canoga Ave., Suite 31 Woodland Hills, CA 91167 PETERSON & BRYNAN, John G. Peterson, 8350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 407, Beverly Hills, CA 90211 MINUTES ENTERED 6-17-87 COUNTY CLERK Dept. 59