Church of Scientology International Found Debtor in Multi-Million Dollar Judgement
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LAWRENCE DOMINICK WOLLERSHEIM
vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, ET AL.,
CASE NO.
C332027
ORDER
The motion of plaintiff Lawrence Wollersheim to amend the
judgment of 7.22.86 against Church of Scientology of California
("CSC"), to include real party defendants and judgment debtors
Church of Scientology International ("CSI") and Religious
Technology Center ("RTC"), is granted.
The parties do not dispute the general principles of law
which guide the court in deciding this motion. The court in which a
judgment is entered has both the inherent power and the duty to
carry the judgment into effect. (Code Civ. Proc.; C. 187.) This may
include amending the judgment to add another debtor. (Jack
Farenbaugh & Son v. Belmont Construction, Inc. (1987) 194
Cal.App.3d 1023, 1029.)
The court must determine whether there is substantial
evidence of the following:
1. CSI and RTC are the alter egos of CSC; and
2. CSI and RTC controlled the litigation.
(Triplett v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1415,
1420, 1421; NEC Electronics, Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d
772, 778.)
The court must also decide if plaintiff is barred by the
doctrine of laches from seeking amendment in 1997 to a 1986
judgment.
The court is entitled to hear evidence which was not
presented in the underlying trial, on proper notice to the adverse
party, to make the judgment speak the truth. (Jack Farenbaugh &
Son v. Belmont Construction, Inc., supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at p.
1029.) All parties have submitted evidence in the form of
declarations and exhibits and the court has reviewed and considered
only admissible evidence; all objections to the evidence are
overruled. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is granted.
The parties agree that Scientology reorganized its corporate
structure from 1981 through 1985 during the pretrial phase of the
instant lawsuit. CSI became the new "mother church," replacing
CSC. RTC was formed in 1982 With the approval of L. Ron
Hubbard, Scientology's founder, and is the owner and protector of
Scientology service marks and products. CSC became an inactive
corporation with no income, assets, employees or business. Plaintiff
claims the reorganization occurred partly to prevent him from
collecting on his judgment against CSC, which he would win one
year later in 1986. Based on the evidence outlined below, the court
agrees and concludes that the Scientology leaders acted in bad faith
which would result in an injustice to plaintiff if CSI and RTC's
corporate separateness were maintained and they were not added as
judgment debtors.
Alter ego
"Where there is such a unity of interest and ownership that
the separateness of the corporation has ceased and the facts are
such that an adherence to the fiction of separate existence of the
corporation would under the particular circumstances sanction a
fraud or promote an injustice, separate identity will be disregarded.
[Citation.]" (Ukegawa Brothers v. Agriculture Labor Relations Bd.
(1989] 212 Cal.App.3d 1314, 1323.)
"To prevail on a claim of 'alter ego,' the [judgment creditor]
must show (1) there is such a unity of interest that the separate
personalities of the corporations no longer exist; and (2) inequitable
results will follow if the corporate separateness is respected.
[Citation.] Certainly, the facts of each case vary." (Tomaselli v.
Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1285.)
A finding of actual fraud is not required; only bad faith
which would result in fraud or injustice if accomplished (Associated
Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Heat Co. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825,
838)
Unity of interest
Among the facts which will be considered [in deciding if
there is a 'unity of interest'] are:
1. Financial issues (e.g. was the corporation adequately
capitalized?);
2. Corporate formality questions (e.g. was stock issued,
are minutes kept and officers and directors elected, are corporate
records segregated?);
3. Ownership issues {e.g. what is the stock ownership
picture?); and
4. Commingling issues (e.g. are corporate assets
commingled, does the parent company merely use the corporate
shell of the subsidiary to obtain goods and services for the parent
company?); etc. [Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co.,
supra, 210 Cal.App.2d at p.p. 838-840.]"'
(Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p
1285, fn. 13.)
Applying these rules to the instant case, there is sufficient
evidence that CSI and RTC had a unity of interest with defendant
CSC:
1. Financial issues
a. Claiming responsibility for the debt of the other
(Associated Vendors, Inc., supra, at p. 838)
CSI has claimed (to the IRS) as its own debt the $30
million judgment [later reduced) plaintiff won against CSC.
CSI paid CSC's lawyers' fees in this case. (Exh. A, p.
60.) 1
CSI is responsible for CSC's debt in another lawsuit
between these parties, CSC v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th
628. (Exh. II, p. 14.}
CSC's counsel Chodos has acknowledged his other
client, CSI, is responsible for CSC's debts and has said it renders
moot any alter ego issue. (Exh. II, pp. 8-11.)
RTC and CSC claimed the judgment in this case as
their own debt as an element of their damages in another
____________________________
1 All references to exhibits are to plaintiff's exhibits filed on
5.9.97
in support of this motion.
____________________________
lawsuit between the parties, RTC and CSI v. Wollersheim (9th Cir.
1992) 971 F.2d 364. (Exh. U, p. 4.) Further, CSI and RTC filed a
notice of appeal, not only on their own behalf, but also on CSC's
behalf, even though CSC was not a party. (Exh. Z.)
CSI settled a lawsuit between CSC and another ex-
Scientologist, Gerald Armstrong, in late 1986, even though CSI
was not a party.
b. Failure to adequately capitalize new corporation
or maintain capital in old corporation.
Monthly management fees from local California
Scientology branches, which had been sent to CSC, became payable
to CSI. (Exh. B, p. 151414.)
2. Ownership issues
a. Diversion of assets from a corporation to another
to the detriment of creditors, or manipulation of assets and
liabilities between entities so as to concentrate the assets in one and
the liabilities in the other.
CSC's net worth in 1981 (a year after plaintiff filed
this action) was $340 million. (Exh. I.] By May 1985 (a year before
plaintiff won judgment against CSC), all of CSC's assets had been
divested and transferred to CSI and RTC. (Exh. J, pp. 14309-
14310; Young decl., paras. 20,21.)
b. Identical equitable ownership in the two entities
or the identification of the equitable owners, directors, or officers
w/ domination and control of the various entities or management of
the corporations' affairs.
Authority over CSC and its affairs was handed over
to CSI and RTC, especially David Miscavige, who controls both
corporations and all of Scientology after the death of L. Ron
Hubbard. "Sea Org" is the unincorporated association which, is the
power center -- Miscavige is its highest ranking member. (Exh. B,
p. 153819.) Miscavige is also chairman of RTC and ASI (Author
Services, Inc.).
Scientology's corporate officers and trustees are
intermingled at will.
3. Commingling issues
a. Use of corporation as a shell for the other
CSI provided the funds to open an account at
Republic Bank in New York in CSC's name. (Exh. A, p. 47.)
b. Same employees or attorneys (at p. 839)
RTC's lawyer, Kendrick L. Moxon, was also CSC's
lawyer in the instant case in post-trial matters and in Wollersheim
IV. (Exhs. N, U, V, HH)
Inequitable result
It is sufficient that it appear that recognition of the acts as
those of the corporation only will produce inequitable results.
(Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., supra, at p. 837.)
In light of the closeness of corporations involved, and the ongoing
litigation between these corporations and plaintiff, the court
concludes it would be inequitable to recognize the acts of CSI and
RTC regarding plaintiff's lawsuit against CSC to be separate from
those of CSC.
Control of litigation
"Control of the litigation sufficient to overcome due process
objections may consist of a combination of factors., usually
including the financing of the litigation, the hiring of attorneys, and
control over the course of the litigation. [Citation.] Clearly, some
active defense of the underlying claim is contemplated. [Citation]"
(NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at p. 781.)
Applying these rules to the instant case, there is sufficient
evidence that CSC and RTC controlled this litigation.
Financing the lawsuit
CSI paid CSC's defense costs. (Exh. A, P. 60.)
CSI then funded CSC's 1993 SLAPP suit against
plaintiff. (Exh. A, pp. 59-60.)
There is no written agreement for CSC to repay CSI
for the defense costs. (Exh. A, p. 60.)
CSI's counsel on 4.11.97 stated in a hearing in
Department 14 of this court that CSI financed Wollersheim IV.
Hiring attorneys
Earle Cooley was hired to simultaneously represent
CSC in the instant case and RTC and CSI in Wollersheim II.
Participation in the defense
RTC's present chairman and highest officer in the
power hub "Sea Org," David Miscavige, supervised and controlled
the defense, along with a few other persons in the corporation ASI.
(Young decl., para. 25; exh. S; pp. 364-366.}
Miscavige attended a portion of the trial. (Exh. K.)
Other factors
Miscavige ordered Vicki Aznaran to destroy certain
files the court had ordered CSC to produce to plaintiff. (Exh. S, p.
333.)
Laches
Plaintiff's delay in bringing this motion is excused; further,
CSI and RTC have not demonstrated prejudice by the delay.
RTC and CSI did not exist when plaintiff filed his complaint
in 1980, so they could not have been joined as defendants. While he
could have amended the complaint, his failure to do so is not fatal.
As this court has concluded CSI and RTC are the alter egos of
CSC, their interests were adequately represented and protected at
trial. Finally, the parties have been in litigation ever since the
judgment was rendered, both in federal court and on appeal in state
court. Indeed, the notice of final judgment in the instant case did
not issue until 1994. (Exh. V.)
Dated: 10-29-97 [Signature]
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
To see more documents/articles regarding this group/organization/subject click here.
