Editing Scientology and law (section)

==== Other closed cases ====
; ''Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode''
: In ''Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode'', 1994 WL 228607 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (against [[Frank A. Gerbode]], inventor of Traumatic Incident Reduction), a Rule 11 sanction of $8,887.50 was imposed against [[Helena Kobrin]], an attorney for the Church, for bringing baseless and frivolous claims.<ref>[[Wikisource:Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode]]</ref>

{{Anchor|DeCrescenzo}}
; ''DeCrescenzo v. Church of Scientology International''
: In ''DeCrescenzo v. Church of Scientology International,'' Laura DeCrescenzo sued the organization in 2009 for forcing her to illegally work 14 hour days at age 12 and coercing her to get an abortion at age 17. In 2018, Scientology settled with DeCrescenzo three weeks before the case went to trial.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/311006535/2ndAmendedComplaint-DeCrescenzo-vs-Church-of-Scientology-International-and-RTC|title=2ndAmendedComplaint-DeCrescenzo vs Church of Scientology International and RTC|website=Scribd|language=en|access-date=2018-10-27}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-scientology-suit-settled-20180723-story.html|title=Church of Scientology and former member settle long lawsuit - Los Angeles Times|agency=Associated Press|website=[[Los Angeles Times]]|access-date=2018-10-27|date=July 24, 2018}}</ref>

; ''Garcia Saz et al. v. Church of Scientology Religious Trust et al.''
: In 2013, former Scientology members Luis and Rocio Garcia sued the Church, alleging fraudulent tactics. U.S. District Judge [[James D. Whittemore]] granted the Church's motion to compel the couple into internal "religious arbitration" per the contracts the Garcias had previously signed with the Church. The Church had not established any rules for how to conduct arbitrations and had never before held such an arbitration. For 2½ years the Church objected to each arbiter the Garcias suggested. Eventually the judge selected three Scientologists at random from a list of 500 provided by the Church and the two-day arbitration was held in 2017. The Garcias were not allowed to have an attorney present, bring witnesses, or record the proceedings, and a Church official removed all but 70 pages of the 900 pages of evidence the Garcias submitted. Their attorney called the arbitration "a sham". According to an article in the ''[[Tampa Bay Times]]'', "The panel ultimately refunded the Garcias $18,495 for unused deposits on religious services but did not acknowledge the claims of fraud, misrepresentation or breach of contract."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tampabay.com/news/clearwater/2021/11/03/scientology-can-settle-legal-disputes-from-within-appeals-court-rules/ |title=Scientology can settle legal disputes from within, appeals court rules |date=November 3, 2021 |first=Tracey |last=McManus |website=[[The Tampa Bay Times]]}}</ref><ref name="garcia-salon">{{cite news |url=https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/calif_couple_sues_over_donations_to_scientology_2/ |title=California couple sues over donations to Scientology |first=David |last=Sedensky |work=Salon |date=January 24, 2013 |access-date=February 22, 2013}}</ref> An appeal by Garcia was unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Serv. Org. - Opinion 18-13452 |date=2021-11-02 |url=https://casetext.com/case/garcia-v-church-of-scientology-flag-serv-org-3 |website=[[Casetext]]}}</ref>