The plaintiffs allege they were drawn into Scientology as children and later spent years serving in the Sea Org.

• Forced labour and trafficking: They claim they were coerced into unpaid labour and services, including work aboard the Freewinds and at Flag Base in Clearwater, Florida.
• Long working hours: They allege that work aboard the Freewinds sometimes lasted 16–24 hours a day under dangerous and abusive conditions.
• Abuse and intimidation: They describe alleged physical, psychological and emotional abuse, interrogation, punishment and humiliation.
• Restrictions on freedom: They allege confinement and coercive restrictions on their ability to leave.
• Documents and departure: They claim they were pressured to sign documents and faced obstacles involving travel arrangements and the return of identification documents.

The complaint includes claims under the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and related provisions.

On 31 March 2023, the district court ruled that the defendants could enforce arbitration agreements and stayed the case pending arbitration. This was a procedural ruling, not a trial verdict on the allegations.

Further developments have been reported concerning the stay and arbitration proceedings. Check the live docket before relying on this summary as the latest status.

The plaintiffs allege that they experienced a pattern of stalking, harassment and intimidation. The case includes allegations about conduct directed at people who reported or spoke publicly about sexual-assault allegations against Masterson.

These are claims made in civil litigation. They should not be read as findings that every alleged act occurred or that every defendant is liable.

On 19 May 2026, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision addressing anti-SLAPP challenges to portions of the case. The decision upheld some rulings and directed that certain allegations be removed.

The California Supreme Court denied review on 12 August 2026. The Court of Appeal docket records the case as complete on 8 September 2026. These were procedural rulings, not a final trial verdict on all underlying allegations.

Remini alleges that defendants engaged in a campaign of harassment and made defamatory statements about her. The case also involves disputes about whether specific statements are actionable factual claims or protected opinion.

The defendants have challenged parts of the lawsuit. The claims remain allegations unless established through the legal process.

On 31 July 2026, the California Court of Appeal affirmed part of the lower court’s anti-SLAPP ruling and reversed part of it, directing changes to the order. The decision allowed some claims to continue while other allegations were struck.

This was an appellate ruling about which claims could proceed, not a final trial finding of liability. Check the court docket for subsequent proceedings.

Haney has alleged false imprisonment, stalking, emotional distress and other misconduct connected to her time in Scientology and her efforts to leave. The complaint and later filings set out the specific legal claims.

The defendants’ responses and court rulings should be consulted alongside the complaint; allegations are not findings of liability.

The case has involved arbitration-related proceedings and later status conferences. A publicly indexed docket source records activity in June 2026, including a hearing concerning an application for an out-of-state attorney to appear.

The latest complete disposition has not been independently confirmed here. Check the Los Angeles Superior Court case access system before describing the case as currently active or giving a definitive status.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleges sexual abuse and related harms and names Scientology-related entities and individuals as defendants. The plaintiff’s identity is protected by the use of a pseudonym.

For accuracy and privacy, consult the court filings for the specific claims rather than inferring facts not stated in the public record.

In 2024, the court considered motions concerning sealing and arbitration, including a motion to compel arbitration. The ruling addressed whether the dispute should be sent to arbitration.

The latest status has not been independently verified for this page. Check the current court docket before publication.

The complaint alleges failures to provide appropriate help and alleged influence over the care and treatment Whitney Mills received. The claims are allegations made by the estate and have not been presented here as proven findings.

The latest court status and case number have not been independently verified for this page. Consult the relevant Florida court docket before describing the case as active or reporting any ruling.

The complaint raises civil-rights and related claims involving the plaintiff’s interactions with law enforcement and other named defendants. The precise claims should be read in the filed complaint; they are allegations, not findings.

The court dismissed earlier versions of the complaint with leave to amend. A second amended complaint was filed on 30 July 2026. The latest docket entry available for this summary does not establish the subsequent status, so check the docket for later orders.

The plaintiff alleges racial discrimination by the named defendants. The specific facts and legal claims should be taken from the complaint rather than inferred from the docket category alone.

The allegations have not been established as findings of liability.

The complaint was filed on 3 August 2026 and summonses were issued. The publicly indexed docket consulted for this summary may not contain later entries. Check the live federal docket for subsequent developments.

FASA reports that the claimant objected to statements in its publications, including descriptions and terminology used in its criticism of Scientology. The dispute concerns the wording and interpretation of the publications and whether they infringed the claimant’s personal rights.

FASA disputes the allegations and argues that its reporting was legitimate criticism of Scientology and its beliefs. These are the parties’ respective positions as described in the blog; they should not be treated as judicial findings.

6 March 2025: According to FASA’s later reporting, the court issued a provisional-measure decision and ordered FASA to pay costs.

14 November 2025: FASA published an account of its response to the claimant’s action, stating that it had prepared a detailed written defence supported by evidence.

July 2026: A later report by FASA stated that it had submitted a further written response to the court and was awaiting a decision. The report also described an additional period for the claimant to submit a response.

Latest status: The latest status reflected here is based on the activists’ published reporting. A subsequent court decision and the current official procedural status have not been independently confirmed. Check official court records before describing the case as still pending or reporting an outcome.

Audit the Government reports that Stacy was found in an underground concrete electrical vault containing electrical equipment. The author raises questions about the heavy metal cover, the position of a ladder inside the vault, and whether the physical circumstances were fully examined.

The report also questions whether investigators sufficiently explored the events leading up to Stacy’s death. It states that the original investigation relied on a limited number of interviews and that people who knew Stacy, including roommates, were not interviewed. These points are presented as claims and criticisms made by the report’s author; readers should consult the released records and any official responses to assess them.

The article further describes a public-records dispute with Riverside County. According to the author, the Sheriff’s Department initially said the records could not be located, and later attributed the problem to a misspelling of Stacy’s name in its database. The records were disclosed following litigation.

Audit the Government’s article includes an update dated 23 August 2026. The author reports receiving a letter from the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office stating that it would not open a murder investigation, citing a lack of evidence of criminality.

The author disputes the adequacy of the investigative work and says friends, acquaintances and roommates were not interviewed. This is the author’s account and criticism of the response; it should not be presented as an independent judicial finding or proof of a cover-up.

The key distinction is that the released records and the public-records litigation can be examined directly, while conclusions about what caused Stacy’s death or whether misconduct occurred require evidence beyond allegations or unanswered questions.

For the precise allegations, consult the original complaint. This entry is included to distinguish the case’s filing history from cases that remain active.

A notice of voluntary dismissal was filed on 20 July 2026, and the docket records the case as terminated. A voluntary dismissal is not a court finding that the allegations were true or false.

The allegations should be read from the original complaint and any amended filings. The existence of a complaint does not establish that the claims are true.

The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the entire case in August 2025. The court closed the case on 20 August 2025. This case should not be presented as currently active based on the docket reviewed.