Leah Remini’s lawsuit against Scientology gets 4th judge

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Randolph M. Hammock will no longer preside over actress Leah Remini’s civil lawsuit against the Church of Scientology, thanks to a successful challenge from prominent church member David Miscavige.

Judge Holly J. Fujie will be the fourth judge appointed to the case.

Counsel for all defendants did not respond to phoned and emailed requests for comment by press time on Wednesday to provide a reason for the challenge. Peremptory challenges to judicial officers do not require a reason under Code of Civil Procedure 170.6(a)(4).

Remini, a former member of the church, claimed in her lawsuit that the organization engaged in a campaign of harassment against her after she publicly exited and denounced it. Leah Remini v. Church of Scientology et al., 23STCV18300 (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed Aug. 2, 2023)

Jeffrey K. Riffer of Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP in Los Angeles filed Miscavige’s peremptory challenge to Hammock on March 26, days after the judge granted most of an anti-SLAPP motion from the Church of Scientology.

While Hammock said that the challenge was properly and timely filed, he held off on granting it at an April 2 hearing, instead inviting all parties to file briefs on issues including his anti-SLAPP ruling.

“This court has already ruled upon a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP), which may involve a ‘contested fact determinations relating to the merits of the trial,’ – does this prevent defendant Miscavige’s peremptory challenge at this time?” a minute order of the hearing read.

In a responding brief, Miscavige argued that it did not.

“Even when a court has determined that a plaintiff has established a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a claim, that determination is not admissible at trial and it does not affect the burden or degree of proof at trial,” the brief said, citing Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(b)(3).

Hammock also questioned whether Miscavige’s status as de facto leader of co-defendants Church of Scientology International and the Religious Technology Center prevented him from filing an individual challenge, whether it was prevented by a motion to quash he filed in November, whether a joint stipulation requesting more time to file a pleading affects his right to challenge and whether defense appeals to the anti-SLAPP ruling impacted the challenge.

In response, the Church of Scientology filed a brief noting that Miscavige holds no position in their organization, while the Religious Technology Center said he is the chairman of their board of directors, not their leader or CEO.

William H. Forman and Peggy E. Dayton of Winston & Strawn LLP in Los Angeles represented the church, while Robert E. Mangels and Matthew D. Hinks of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP in Los Angeles represented the Religious Technology Center.

Miscavige’s brief argued that his position as chairman at the Religious Technology Center has no bearing on his individual challenge, and his motion to quash was a special appearance that did not trigger a 15-day deadline to file the challenge.

“Additionally, the court never decided the motion, and even assuming it had, any such decision would not have required resolution of conflicting factual contentions relating to the merits of the case,” Miscavige’s brief read.

The brief also argued that Miscavige’s motion to quash had no bearing on the matter because it was filed after his challenge.

As to the defense’s appeals to Hammock’s anti-SLAPP rulings, Miscavige argued they have no effect on matters that don’t directly affect the judgment or order on appeal.

“The identity of the particular judge presiding over the matter is collateral to the issues on appeal, as it cannot affect the validity (or invalidity) of the order on appeal,” the brief said. “Therefore, the Notice of Appeal does not impact Mr. Miscavige’s right to exercise his CCP § 170.6 challenge.”

Miscavige’s challenge is the second to be granted in the case. In August, Remini issued a successful challenge to William F. Fahey, who was succeeded by Barbara M. Scheper.

Scheper recused herself from the case shortly thereafter, citing Codes of Civil Procedure related to lawyers or their spouses being related to the judge in a case.

Scheper married David C. Scheper of Winston & Strawn LLP in Los Angeles in 1983, according to a 2010 Daily Journal profile. David Scheper represented the Church of Scientology International in a separate case by victims of actor and convicted rapist Danny Masterson, who claimed that the church harassed them for reporting Masterson’s conduct. Chrissie Carnell Bixler et al. v. Church of Scientology International et al., 19STCV29458 (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed Aug. 22, 2019).

Remini’s case is now set for a case management conference in Fujie’s courtroom on May 29. She is represented by Seth M. Lehrman of Lehrman Law in Boca Raton, Florida; Brittany N. Henderson and Bradley J. Edwards of Edwards Henderson in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Linda Singer and Carmen S. Scott of Motley Rice LLC in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. Remini’s counsel did not respond to phoned or emailed requests for comment by press time on Wednesday.