Scientology Defendants Appeal -- Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss

[JBWriter]

The Texas 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals received official Notice that certain defendants in the Rathbun v Miscavige/Scientology trial intend to seek an interlocutory appeal of the denial of their Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss.
No appeal briefs/supporting documents have yet been filed. Yet.
Link: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-14-00199-CV

Court of Appeals Case Number: 03-14-00199-CV
Trial Court Case Number: C-2013-1082B

Notice of Appeal was received on April 2 & 3, 2014, from the following defendants:

Church of Scientology International ("CSI") -
Counsel: Marc A. Fuller, Thomas S. Leatherbury, L.J. Streiber III, George H. Spencer, Jr., Ricardo G. Cedillo, and Isaac J. Huron
David J. Lubow - Counsel: Stephanie S. Bascon
Ed Bryan - Counsel: Jonathan H. Hull
Steven Gregory Sloat - Counsel: Jonathan H. Hull
Monty Drake - Counsel: O. Paul Dunagan & Gary D. Sarles

All defendants named above have until April 14, 2014 to submit a docketing statement to the Appeals Clerk.

Here's a link to the (terrific!) ESMB thread about the Trial Court's denial of the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...N-RATHBUN-SUIT&p=913860&viewfull=1#post913860

<snip>

Quick update - the Court Reporter has filed court records/exhibits with the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court.
Nope, they're not uploaded so we can see 'em. Grrr.

Also, I failed to mention in Post #1 (partially quoted above) that only Mr. Cappuccio was (& is) listed as Counsel for Mrs. Rathbun in this Appeal.
Additional Counsel will probably be added to the docket in a day or two -- I sure hope we see Leslie S. Hyman's name.

JB

 

[JBWriter]

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk has extended the deadline for the New Braunfels Court Clerk to file the trial court record to April 25, 2014.

JB

 

[JBWriter]

Also, I failed to mention in Post #1 (partially quoted above) that only Mr. Cappuccio was (& is) listed as Counsel for Mrs. Rathbun in this Appeal.
Additional Counsel will probably be added to the docket in a day or two -- I sure hope we see Leslie S. Hyman's name.

Quick fyi... Leslie S. Hyman is now noted on the 3rd Circuit's docket as one of the appellee's attorneys in this Appeal. *sigh of relief*
Also added: Marc. F. Weigand & Ray B. Jeffrey.

JB

 

[Kerry]

Quick fyi... Leslie S. Hyman is now noted on the 3rd Circuit's docket as one of the appellee's attorneys in this Appeal. *sigh of relief*
Also added: Marc. F. Weigand & Ray B. Jeffrey. JB

YAY ~ !!!!!!!

And thanks JB for the FYI.

 

[JBWriter]

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk has extended the deadline for the New Braunfels Court Clerk to file the trial court record to April 25, 2014.

JB

The New Braunfels Court Clerk submitted the 56-volume clerk's record with the TX 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on April 21, 2014.
The submission was 4 days early, so genuine kudos & applause to the hardworking New Braunfels Court Clerk.

Now that the Appeals Court has this latest submission, expect to see some activity on the calendar in the days ahead.
Also, be advised that the original Notice of Appeal filed by the TeamCSI&Co defendants has been amended in some form/fashion, but it's not been uploaded to the Appeals online docket so we can't (yet) see what prompted change(s).

56 volumes, folks.

smdh,

JB

 

[Bea Kiddo]

The New Braunfels Court Clerk submitted the 56-volume clerk's record with the TX 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on April 21, 2014.
The submission was 4 days early, so genuine kudos & applause to the hardworking New Braunfels Court Clerk.

Now that the Appeals Court has this latest submission, expect to see some activity on the calendar in the days ahead.
Also, be advised that the original Notice of Appeal filed by the TeamCSI&Co defendants has been amended in some form/fashion, but it's not been uploaded to the Appeals online docket so we can't (yet) see what prompted change(s).

56 volumes, folks.

smdh,

JB

56 volumes for a simple harassment case in a small town in Texas?

Hmmm..... Armadillos are gonna start lovin' popcorn!!!

 

[JBWriter]

56 volumes for a simple harassment case in a small town in Texas?

Hmmm..... Armadillos are gonna start lovin' popcorn!!!

Each day, tens of thousands of women across Texas pull into their own driveways, park their vehicles, and remove grocery bags from their car trunks* -- without being videotaped/surveilled doing so by private investigators.

One woman is denied the 'right' to perform those simple tasks - sans cameras, for no other reason than to serve the maniacal whims of a cash-flush bully.

Does Miscavige's 'right' to cause harm, as ordered directly from his bully's pulpit, outweigh all rights of all others everywhere?
^^^^ That's really the fundamental question in this case.

So.

Popcorn - and lots of it, for now, but eventually?
Caek.
Definitely caek.
Maybe even caek in the shape of an armadillo.

JB

*Car boots.

 

[JBWriter]

Checked the TX 3rd Circuit docket and see the due date for "appellant brief" is May 12, 2014.

TeamCSI&Co = appellants; TeamRathbun = appellee.

JB

 

[JBWriter]

Checked the TX 3rd Circuit docket and see the due date for "appellant brief" is May 12, 2014.

TeamCSI&Co = appellants; TeamRathbun = appellee.

JB

Per the online docket...

The lead appellate attorney for CSI, Thomas Leatherbury, filed a Motion* on April 29 requesting an extension of time to submit the appellant brief because he's very, very busy with other cases/litigation.
The Motion was granted on April 29.
(*The Motion for extension is available to read @ the TAMES site and details which cases/litigation with which Mr. Leatherbury is involved.)

The new due date for submission of the CSI's appellant brief is June 11, 2014.

Also, the trial court's record to date is now 57 volumes.

JB

 

[Leland]

Per the online docket...

The lead appellate attorney for CSI, Thomas Leatherbury, filed a Motion* on April 29 requesting an extension of time to submit the appellant brief because he's very, very busy with other cases/litigation.
The Motion was granted on April 29.
(*The Motion for extension is available to read @ the TAMES site and details which cases/litigation with which Mr. Leatherbury is involved.)

The new due date for submission of the CSI's appellant brief is June 11, 2014.

Also, the trial court's record to date is now 57 volumes.

JB

JBWriter, could you please post a link to the Tames site. I found it but can't find the info on that site.

Hell, that is five more weeks....C of S is really dragging it out.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

JBWriter, could you please post a link to the Tames site. I found it but can't find the info on that site.

Hell, that is five more weeks....C of S is really dragging it out.

yep, it is what they do. Every day they gain without their opponents getting a favorable judgement is, in their eyes, a victory.

 

[Leland]

Found it:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Sear...&MediaID=4d4be40b-7e19-45fa-893e-d45d4731bfee

I'm surprised the motion went unopposed.

 

[JBWriter]

Per the online docket...

The lead appellate attorney for CSI, Thomas Leatherbury, filed a Motion* on April 29 requesting an extension of time to submit the appellant brief because he's very, very busy with other cases/litigation.
The Motion was granted on April 29.
(*The Motion for extension is available to read @ the TAMES site and details which cases/litigation with which Mr. Leatherbury is involved.)

The new due date for submission of the CSI's appellant brief is June 11, 2014.

Also, the trial court's record to date is now 57 volumes.

JB

Quick update...

The rest of the defendants (Bryan, Sloat, Lubow, and Drake) filed a joint Motion for an extension of time to file their respective briefs...and the Motion was granted.

All appellants' briefs are due June 11, 2014.

JB

 

[Lone Star]

Quick update...

The rest of the defendants (Bryan, Sloat, Lubow, and Drake) filed a joint Motion for an extension of time to file their respective briefs...and the Motion was granted.

All appellants' briefs are due June 11, 2014.

JB

Cross posted from the "Mosey Thread".....

Do you kids like the TX Lawyer? Yes? Well here ya go....

TX Lawyer • 3 days ago Earlier this week, CSI requested and received an extension of its briefing deadline in the anti-SLAPP appeal on the Monique Rathbun case. None of the individual appellants (Lubow, Sloat, et al.) filed extension requests, but I would expect them to submit me-too motions sooner or later. CSI's brief will now be due on June 11.


More interesting to me is that that CSI has now added yet another law firm to the case. In addition to (1) their lead appellate attorneys at Vinson & Elkins, (2) Ricardo Cedillo's team in San Antonio, and (3) George Spencer's firm in San Antonio, they have now added (4) Eric M. Lieberman (pro hac vice application allegedly forthcoming) from the firm of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman in New York City. Lieberman is a constitutional law/First Amendment specialist whose firm bio indicates he has represented Scientology (and a number of other religious organizations) in the past. And of course, that's all in addition to the legal team representing David Miscavige and RTC, featuring Haynes & Boone (Lamont Jefferson) and the appellate gurus at Alexander Dubose Jefferson Townsend (Wallace Jefferson).


Those are some awfully big bills coming in.


Tony Ortega Mod TX Lawyer • 3 days ago Lieberman has been in the courtroom during Monique's lawsuit from day one. He's one of the church's big guns going way, way back.


TX Lawyer Tony Ortega • 3 days ago Thanks, Tony. He is not listed among the attorneys on the trial court's docket sheet, so I assumed he was new to the case. It appears instead they've just been holding him back for the appeal.


Tony Ortega Mod TX Lawyer • 3 days ago Pretty sure I remember them saying he was filing pro hac vice on the very first day of the first hearing. Must have taken a while or something.


TX Lawyer Tony Ortega • 3 days ago There doesn't appear to be any pro hac motion on file with the trial court. Technically, he would have to apply for pro hac vice status separately for each court he wanted to appear before as counsel -- trial court, court of appeals, and supreme court. Unless he wanted to do something in front of Judge Waldrip, there probably wouldn't be any need for him to do so in the lower court. But if they want their First Amendment guru to have his name on their appellate briefs, he will have to pro hac his way in.
For the non-lawyers out there, a pro hac vice motion is what you file for an attorney to appear before a court in a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not licensed to practice law. If granted, it only allows the out-of-state lawyer to serve as an attorney in that one particular case, before that one particular court. They are routinely granted once the lawyer has paid the requisite fee to the state bar (I think it's around $250 per application).

All cross posted from The Underground Bunker....www.tonyortega.org

 

[Churchill]

yep, it is what they do. Every day they gain without their opponents getting a favorable judgement is, in their eyes, a victory.

It it is a very short term victory.
Remember,
"The mills of the Gods grind slowly,
but they grind exceedingly fine."

 

[JBWriter]

Per the online docket...

The lead appellate attorney for CSI, Thomas Leatherbury, filed a Motion* on April 29 requesting an extension of time to submit the appellant brief because he's very, very busy with other cases/litigation.
The Motion was granted on April 29.
(*The Motion for extension is available to read @ the TAMES site and details which cases/litigation with which Mr. Leatherbury is involved.)

The new due date for submission of the CSI's appellant brief is June 11, 2014.

Also, the trial court's record to date is now 57 volumes.

JB

A gentle reminder...

All of the Appellants in this interlocutory appeal must submit their legal briefs* to the TX 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in two days' time.
(*It's unclear from reading the docket whether each defendant will submit individual briefs or if one, giant-sized brief will be submitted for the lot.)

Which specific arguments will the TeamCSI&Co attorneys put forth to convince this appellate panel that the defendants possess legally-protected rights under the Texas Anti-SLAPP statutes sufficient to permit the harassment of Mrs. Rathbun?
I surely don't know... but I suspect they will be hilarious ~ disingenuous ~ bogus ~ inadequate ~ etc.


It seems logical to assume TeamRathbun will be permitted to file a Reply to TeamCSI&Co's brief, but I don't know when such a Reply would be due for submission --- does anyone here know? The Texas Rules are a bit confusing and it seems like a Reply would be due within 30 days, but I'm not sure and would appreciate a li'l help.

Also, there are 6 judges total @ the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Three of them are on the Appellate Panel for the other appeal (Writ of Mandamus re: Miscavige deposition).
Do we know the names of the 3 judges on this appeal? Are they the same 3 judges? :confused2:

JB

 

[tetloj]

JB - from TX Lawyer at the Bunker yesterday/day before

Re: the Monique Rathbun lawsuit, nothing on the docket sheet indicates that the same panel of judges (Goodwin, Puryear, and Field) on the David Miscavige deposition matter would also hear the anti-SLAPP appeal by CSI and the other defendants. It's certainly possible that the same justices would be involved because both matters arise out of the same underlying lawsuit, but I don't believe that it's automatic.
Incidentally, I finally found out why the Austin Court of Appeals hasn't put the briefs or the record online in the mandamus matter. Apparently, the clerk's office had a lot of problems with people filing mandamus materials (which are often hurried, emergency proceedings) without first redacting things that should have been redacted from the public record. So they just implemented a policy of not putting mandamus filings online. That's a pretty annoying policy.
Finally, Tony omitted the next deadline in the anti-SLAPP appeal, which is that the appellants are due to file their appellate briefs this Wednesday, June 11. They'll probably be put online by the clerk's office the next day.

 

[JBWriter]

Each of the 5 defendants have submitted their briefs to the Texas 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
To read each, here's the direct link to the Court's website: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-14-00199-CV

Also, a new thread was started when CSI's brief was submitted & reported by The Underground Bunker; here's the link to the ESMB thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...s-their-spying&p=939341&viewfull=1#post939341

Lastly, it appears that TeamRathbun has 30 days to submit a Response Brief (whether to each of the 5 individual briefs or collectively isn't yet known) and, once the Response Brief is submitted to the Court, TeamCSI&Co is permitted to submit a Reply Brief.
After all of the Briefs have been submitted, it is possible the Court will schedule a Hearing, but that is not guaranteed to occur.

JB <----Sending good thoughts/wishes to Leslie Hyman & her staff as they work to rebut the defendants' positions. #TeamHymanRocks!

 

[JBWriter]

Quick update...

Per the TAMES website, TeamRathbun must submit their Response Brief on/before July 3, 2014*.
No hint (yet) whether or not the Court will schedule a Hearing.

JB

*After that submission, TeamCSI&Co may submit a Reply Brief to the Court.

 

[JBWriter]

Quick update...

Per the TAMES website, TeamRathbun must submit their Response Brief on/before July 3, 2014*.
No hint (yet) whether or not the Court will schedule a Hearing.

JB

*After that submission, TeamCSI&Co may submit a Reply Brief to the Court.

TeamRathbun's Response Brief is due to be submitted tomorrow.

Sending out advanced thanks to Leslie Hyman & her entire staff because I know they'll do their very best...just as they always do.

JB

*Has everyone here read the Briefs submitted by each of the Defendants? Color me decidedly unimpressed.