Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/207941640/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-Petition-for-writ-of-mandamus-Supporting-documents
Timestamp: 2015-07-03 18:21:51
Document Index: 332021275

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2']

P. 1Monique Rathbun v Scientology, Petition for writ of mandamus Supporting documentsMonique Rathbun v Scientology, Petition for writ of mandamus Supporting documentsRatings: (0)|Views: 9,473|Likes: 0Published by Tony OrtegaSupporting documents for Scientology's petition for a writ of mandamus in Monique Rathbun's lawsuit against the church.Supporting documents for Scientology's petition for a writ of mandamus in Monique Rathbun's lawsuit against the church.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Tony Ortega on Feb 19, 2014Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/207941640/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-Petition-for-writ-of-mandamus-Supporting-documents02/19/2014pdftextoriginal CAUSE NO. C-2013-1082B MONIQUE RATHBUN, Plaintiff, v § § § § § DAVID MISCA VIGE, RELIGIOUS § TECHNOLOGY CENTER, § CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY § INTERNATIONAL, STEVEN § GREGORY SLOAT, MONTY DRAKE, § DA VE LUBOW and ED BRYAN, § DefundantL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 207™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT MONTY DRAKE'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE, ORIGINAL ANSWER, AND MOTION TO DESIGN A TE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 86, before filing any answer or other pleading in this action, Defendant Monty Drake ( Defendant Drake ) files this Motion to Transfer Venue, Original Answer and Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party in response to the Plaintiff's First Amended Petition and, subject to hi
s Motion to Transfer Venue, would show the Court: MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE I Defendant Drake is a resident of the State of Texas and is domiciled in Hood o
unty, Texas. Defendant Steven Gregory Sloat is a resident of the State of Texas and is domicil
ed in Harris County, Texas. 2. The primary and principal purpose of, and primary and principal rel
ief sought by, Plaintiff's First Amended P
ition is injunctive relie
f 3. Pursuant to Section 65.023 of the Texas Civil Pra
ce Remedies Code, mandatory venue of this lawsuit is in Hood County, Texas, where Defendant Drake is domiciled, or in Harris County, Texas, where Defendant Sloat is domiciled. Defendant Monty Drake's Motion to Tran
sfer Venue, Original An
swer, and Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party Page 1 MR707
suant to Section 15.016 of the Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code, the mandatory venue required by Section 65.023 prevails over all mandatory and permissive venu
e provisions of Chapter I 5 of the Texas C
ivil Practice Remedies Code. 5. Defendant Drake denies that Comal Cou
nty is a county of proper venue. Defendant Drake denies that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving ri
se to Plaintiff's purported claims occurred and are s
till occurring in Co
mal County. 6. Pursua
nt to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 86-89 and Sect
.023 of the Te
ivil Practice Remedies Co
de, Defendant Drake objects to venue of this action in Comal Cou
ty asserts that venue in Comal County is improper, and seeks transfer of t
s case to a Di
strict Court in Ho
unty, Texas or alternatively, in Harris County, Texas. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Drake pra
ys that this Court, after notice and hearing, grant thi
s Motion to Transfer Venue, transferring this action to a District Court in Ho
od County, Texa
s or alternatively, in Harri
s County, Texas, tax all costs against the Plaintiff, and grant Defendant Drake such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which he may be justly entitled. DEFENDANT MONTY DRAKE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER Subject to and without waiving the foregoing Motion to Transfer Venue, which may be hereafter amended, Defendant Drake submit
s the following Original Answer in re
se to Plaintiffs pleadings and would s
how the Court the following: I. GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92, Defendant Drake denies generally each and every material allegation of Plaintiff's pleadings and demands that each and every material allegation be proved by a preponderance of the competent evidence at the trial of hi
s case. Defendant Monty Drake's Motion to ransfer Venue, Original Answer, and Motion to Designate Responsible hird Party Page 2 MR708
DEFENSES Pursuant to Texas Ru
le of Civ
il Procedure 94, Defendant Drake asserts the fo
ng defenses to Plaintiffs pl
eadings: 1. Plainti
ffs purported causes of acti
on for int
entional infliction of emo
ss, tortious in
terference with her employment contract, in
vasion of privacy fo
r intrusion on sec
on, and inv
asion of pr
acy by publi
ure of private fac
ts fai
ish that Pla
iff ha
s no adequate remed
y at l
at there is a s
stantial r
k of imminent harm to Pla
tiff, that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of injunct
ive relief, that Plaintiff has a su
antial like
ood of pr
evailing on her cla
s at trial, and otherw
ise fai
l to estab
sh her r
nctive relief. 2. As alleged in Defendant Chur
ch of Scientology Internatio
swer, Plaintiff has violated Church of Sci
gy International t
he "Church") trademarks, ha
s infringed th
s copyr
s, has co
red with her hu
, Mark "
rty" Rathb
, to do so, ha
s aided a
nd abetted him in doing so, h
as encouraged th
e theft of the Chu
s property, h
ed from such violat
s, infringements and thefts, h
as aided an
d abetted her husba
nd to violate his contractual and fidu
ry ob
s to the Church, an
s aided and abetted him in vio
s attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. As a re
sult, Pla
ff has unclean hand
s that prevent her fr
om recovering any type of equitable relief. 3. As judicially admitted in her Fi
rst Amended Petit
n and in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's swo
rn affidavit to thi
he has allegedly been harassed for four years. While Defendant Drake denies th
at any of the all
eged condu
ct is vio
lative of any of Plaintiff's right
s, any complaint about it at this late time is n
ow barred by the doctrine of aches. 4. Plaintiffs asserted causes of ac
on, if any, are barred by Se
.002 and Defendant Monty Drake's Motion to Tran
swer, and Motion to De
signate Responsible Third Party Pag
e3 MR709
Similar to Monique Rathbun v Scientology, Petition for writ of mandamus Suppor...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Motion for Contempt Pt 1Tony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: Motion for Contempt Pt 2Tony OrtegaTarr v Narconon Fresh Start: ComplaintTony OrtegaWelch vs Narconon: Motion to have Reponses AdmittedTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Church of Scientology; Scientology's Petition for Writ of MandamusTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Lamont Jefferson Letter about 2007 text messagesTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI Appeal BriefTony OrtegaGarcia v. Scientology: Order to Refile Amended ComplaintTony OrtegaKen Dandar: Final Judgment by Judge Crockett FarnellTony OrtegaDeCrescenzo v. Scientology: Judge Hess AssignedTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Ed Bryan AppealAnonLoverMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: Response to Anti-SLAPPTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations Part 2Tony OrtegaMonique Rathbun vs Scientology: CSI Motion to DisqualifyTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion to ReconsiderTony OrtegaBert Leahy DeclarationTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun Temporary Restraining OrderTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations Part 1Tony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: Leave to File Supplemental AuthorityTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Miscavige Special AppearanceTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: Appellee's Motion for leave to file responseTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Order Granting Continuance and Discovery RequestTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI's Anti-SLAPP Motion, part 2Tony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion to Quash deposition of David MiscavigeTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v. Scientology, Disqualify Motion DeniedTony OrtegaMonique v. Scientology: Monty Drake AppealTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Mike Rinder Declaration re: 2007 TextsTony OrtegaMonique v. Scientology: Reply Brief of Appellant Ed BryanTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion for SanctionsTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: Reply Brief of Appellant CSITony Ortega
RecommendedMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: Motion for Contempt Pt 1Tony OrtegaMonique Rathbun files a motion for contempt in her lawsuit against ScientologyMonique Rathbun v. Scientology: Motion for Contempt Pt 2Tony OrtegaExhibits for Monique Rathbun's motion for contempt in her lawsuit against Sci...Tarr v Narconon Fresh Start: ComplaintTony OrtegaCathy and Michael Tarr sue the Narconon facility in Nevada for the same decep...Welch vs Narconon: Motion to have Reponses AdmittedTony OrtegaPlaintiff Welch responds to Narconon's answer to his complaint by asking cour...Monique Rathbun v Church of Scientology; Scientology's Petition for Writ of MandamusTony OrtegaScientology's petition to the Texas Third Court of Appeals for a writ of mand...Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Lamont Jefferson Letter about 2007 text messagesTony OrtegaLamont Jefferson submits a letter to Judge Dib Waldrip about Monique Rathbun'...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI Appeal BriefTony OrtegaChurch of Scientology International's appeal brief to overturn Judge Waldrip'...Garcia v. Scientology: Order to Refile Amended ComplaintTony OrtegaJudge Whittemore instructs the Garcias to refile their motion for leave to fi...Ken Dandar: Final Judgment by Judge Crockett FarnellTony OrtegaJudge Crockett Farnell orders attorney Ken Dandar to pay Scientology $1 millionDeCrescenzo v. Scientology: Judge Hess AssignedTony OrtegaJudge Robert Hess assigned to Laura DeCrescenzo's lawsuit against ScientologyMonique Rathbun v Scientology: Ed Bryan AppealAnonLoverDefendant Ed Bryan appeals the denial of his anti-SLAPP motion in Monique Rat...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Response to Anti-SLAPPTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun responds to Scientology's anti-SLAPP motion against her haras...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations Part 2Tony OrtegaMore affidavits and declarations submitted by Monique Rathbun in response to ...Monique Rathbun vs Scientology: CSI Motion to DisqualifyTony OrtegaThe Church of Scientology Int moves to disqualify Monique Rathbun's attorneys...Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion to ReconsiderTony OrtegaChurch of Scientology motion to reconsider Judge Waldrip's order that David M...Bert Leahy DeclarationTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun v Scientology harassment lawsuit, Bert Leahy declarationMonique Rathbun Temporary Restraining OrderTony OrtegaTRO granted to Monique Rathbun in her lawsuit against the Church of ScientologyMonique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations Part 1Tony OrtegaNumerous affidavits and declarations submitted by Monique Rathbun in answer t...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Leave to File Supplemental AuthorityTony OrtegaScientology asks to file some responses to issues brought up during oral argu...Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Miscavige Special AppearanceTony OrtegaDavid Miscavige asks to be let out of Monique Rathbun's lawsuit with a specia...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Appellee's Motion for leave to file responseTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun counters Scientology's request that the Texas Third Court of ...Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Order Granting Continuance and Discovery RequestTony OrtegaJudge Dib Waldrip grants Monique Rathbun's request for a continuance before r...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: CSI's Anti-SLAPP Motion, part 2Tony OrtegaThe Church of Scientology files an anti-SLAPP motion in Monique Rathbun's har...Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion to Quash deposition of David MiscavigeTony OrtegaScientology moves to quash the deposition of David Miscavige, which Monique R...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology, Disqualify Motion DeniedTony OrtegaJudge Dib Waldrip denies Scientology's motion to have Monique Rathbun's attor...Monique v. Scientology: Monty Drake AppealTony OrtegaDefendant Monty Drake's appeal of denied anti-SLAPP motion in Monique Rathbun...Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Mike Rinder Declaration re: 2007 TextsTony OrtegaA declaration filed by Mike Rinder regarding 2007 texts from his Blackberry w...Monique v. Scientology: Reply Brief of Appellant Ed BryanTony OrtegaFormer 'Squirrel Buster' Ed Bryan replies to Monique Rathbun's response to Sc...Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion for SanctionsTony OrtegaMonique Rathbun files for sanctions against Scientology because of issues in ...Monique Rathbun v. Scientology: Reply Brief of Appellant CSITony OrtegaThe Church of Scientology's reply brief to Monique Rathbun's response in the ...Previous|NextPage 1 of 8