Danny Masterson wants a Los Angeles judge to toss a complaint from his ex-girlfriends that he argues is filled with “paranoid delusions” and only targets him to get media attention.
Chrissie Carnell Bixler, Marie Riales and two Jane Does in August sued the actor and the Church of Scientology, claiming they were stalked and harassed after filing sexual assault reports with the LAPD. In January, Bixler (along with her husband who is also a plaintiff) published a series of Instagram posts claiming she had to put down their dog after it ingested rat poison that had been wrapped in raw meat that was put in their yard.
On Monday, Masterson’s attorney Andrew Brettler filed a demurrer to the complaint arguing that the claims against the actor should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action against him.
“This lawsuit is not about justice, as Mr. Masterson’s exes disingenuously claim,” writes Brettler. “It is a shameful money grab; plain and simple.”
The attorney argues his client is only being sued so the media will cover the litigation and the complaint doesn’t allege any wrongdoing by Masterson. Six individuals are identified in the complaint as allegedly having harassed the plaintiffs, but none of those people are being sued.
“In what can only be characterized as paranoid delusions, Mr. Masterson’s ex-girlfriends and one of their jealous husbands banded together to concoct these preposterous and bigoted allegations aimed largely against the Church of Scientology,” Brettler writes. “Recognizing that their original claims arising out of their prior, consensual relationships with Mr. Masterson are not only time-barred under the law but also entirely meritless, they turned this case into one about alleged stalking and harassment. Giving these delusional plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt, they have seemingly convinced themselves that every day inconveniences that are commonplace in all large cities, such as having their trashcans go missing, or finding their car doors unlocked, are part of a large conspiracy against them by the Church of Scientology at the direction of one of their parishioners.”
The attorney continues to argue that “lawsuits do not get much more far-fetched, or anti-religious than this one” and says the individuals’ claims have nothing in common and should not have been pleaded jointly.
Brettler also says the two Jane Doe defendants don’t meet the “exceptional circumstances” required to file a lawsuit under a fictitious name and the court should deny them leave to amend their complaint unless they’re willing to reveal their identities. Further, he argues the claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress fail to allege facts that give rise to those causes of action.
