IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
Appeal from Superior Court of California
APPELLANTS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
the proceedings below upon which these appeals are based and who
tank no appeal from the underlying orders below, has sought
leave for permission to file a brief herein and for an extension
of 60 days in which to do so. Defendant's petition for leave
should be denied, for the reasons stated below:
the Superior Court below granting in part and denying in part
the applications of Bent Corydon to unseal the file in this
case. The file in this case was sealed pursuant to a settlement
agreement and stipulation entered into, through counsel, by the
plaintiffs Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue
Hubbard, on the one hand, and the defendant, Gerald Armstrong,
on the other hand. As set forth in the appellants' briefs
herein, the sealing of the file was an essential part of the
settlement agreement, pursuant to which Mr. Armstrong received a
substantial sum of money in settlement of his cross-complaint.
thereby waived any objection to, the sealing of the file herein.
He has no recognizable interest in the outcome of this appeal.
informed and aware of the proceedings below initiated by Mr.
Corydon. Counsel for appellants, indeed, mailed complete sets
of all such papers to Mr. Armstrong's counsel. Mr. Armstrong,
through his counsel, did trot participate in the proceedings
below, and chose not to notice an appeal from any of the orders
objecting to the inclusion of certain exhibits to a document
filed by Mr. Corydon on December 23, 1988, and asking this Court
to seal those exhibits. Significantly, in his pleading Mr.
Armstrong supported the position of the appellants herein,
stating: "Numerous materials in the Armstrong case filed [sic]
were sealed at the behest of both parties as part of the
settlement of the case. That sealing was an intrical [sic] part
of the settlement, which settlement should not be undone."
briefing by the parties, the last brief having been filed on
January 18, 1990. Now, over one month later, Mr. Armstrong
seeks 60 days to file a brief in a proceeding over which he has
exhibited little concern and asserted no legal interest, other
than to maintain the seal on the file. In seeking such relief,
Mr. Armstrong has apparently fired his counsel of record and is
purportedly proceeding pro se, while stating that he hopes to
retain new counsel in the future.
permitted to delay the proceedings in this appeal at this late
date. He has not identified what interests he wishes to assert.
He has not stated why he did not instruct his attorneys of
record to file or seek to file a brief at the proper stages of
his failure to participate or assert an interest in the
proceedings below, because he has waived whatever interest he
may have, and because his application is untimely.
from filing a brief by the settlement agreement which he entered
into in this case. Mr. Armstrong did waive the right to file
any further briefs in opposition to positions asserted by the
appellants arising out of this case. He did so freely and in
substantial settlement of his cross-complaint. He has stated no
reason to be relieved from his prior agreement.
"petition" should be denied in all respects.
Dated: March 6, 1990