Part of a public library containing court papers related to lawsuits involving Scientology in some way. Collected to help lawyers and critics of Scientology in future lawsuits from or against this cult. Please report back if this has been of help, or send new contributions to the collection. Thanks. Andreas Heldal-Lund (heldal@online.no)

       NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other
       than opinions or orders designated for publication are not
       precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the
       doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

       (The decision of the Court is referenced in a "Table of Decisions
       Without Reported Opinions" appearing in the Federal Reporter.)

  Joseph A. YANNY, an individual, Joseph A. Yanny, a professional corporation,
    CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California corporation, Religious
      Technology Center, a California corporation, Church of Scientology of
      California, a California corporation, Author Services Incorporated, a
  California corporation, Bridge Publications, Inc., a California corporation,
  Church of Spiritual Technology, a California corporation, and Does 1 through
                      50, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
                                  No. 90-55211.
                 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
                       Argued and Submitted April 2, 1991.
                              Decided May 13, 1991.
  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of
 California, No. CV89-2621 R(Jrx);  Manuel L. Real, District Judge,

  Before SCHROEDER and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and KING [FN*], District
                                MEMORANDUM [FN**]
  **1 Reviewing de novo the dismissal of appellant's federal action under
 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)6, we agree with the district court that the claims
 asserted in the federal action should have been brought as compulsory
 counterclaims in an earlier state action.
  Whether the claims asserted in a federal complaint should have been brought as
 a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier state court action is a question of
 state law.  Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 827 F.2d 1246, 1249 (9th
 Cir.1987).  We review de novo district court rulings on questions of state
 law.  Id.
  Cal.Code Civ.Pro. s 426.30(a) states:
  Except as otherwise provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint
 has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related
 cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he
 has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any cause of action
 assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.
  The term "related cause of action" is to be read broadly in favor of finding a
 cause of action to be related.  Currie Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Bowen,
 136 Cal.App.3d 774, 186 Cal.Rptr. 543 (1982).  The factual or legal issues need
 not be identical, but only logically related.  Id. at 774, 186 Cal.Rptr. at
  Yanny's federal claim is a "related cause of action" to defendants' state
 claim because both claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.  The
 gravamen of the defendants' state complaint is that when Yanny served as
 defendants Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), Church of Scientology
 International ("CSI"), and Church of Scientology of California's ("CSC") legal
 counsel, Yanny committed fraud, breached his fiduciary duty to them, and has
 continued to wrong them because of their prior relationship.  The gravamen of
 Yanny's federal complaint is that after serving for a number of years as
 defendants RTC, CSI, CSC, Church of Spiritual Technology ("CST"), Bridge
 Publications, Inc. ("BPI"), and Author Services, Inc.'s ("ASI") counsel, the
 relationship soured, and as a result, the defendants engaged in a pattern of
 behavior that injured Yanny, and defendants perpetrated these wrongs upon him
 because of the prior relationship.  Both the state claim and the federal claim
 arise out of the same occurrence:  Yanny's representation of the defendants.
  To be a required counterclaim under s 426.30(a), the parties in both
 actions must be identical.  See Russo v. Scrambler Motorcycles, 56
 Cal.App.3d 112, 118, 127 Cal.Rptr. 913 (1976).  Yanny argues that his federal
 suit should be barred only as to the three defendants (RTC, CSI, and CSC) who
 were parties to the state action.  We need not address this issue, because
 Yanny failed to raise it below.  Jovanovich v. United States, 813 F.2d 1035,
 1037 (9th Cir.1987).  However, we point out that Yanny himself admits that RTC,
 CSI, CSC, CST, BPI, and ASI constitute a single larger entity.  Therefore,
 s 426.30(a)'s requirement that the parties in both actions be identical is

      FN* Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District
     of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

      FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
     cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit
     Rule 36-3.

End of file...