Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Garcia Plaintiffs Object to 10 Page Addition

Garcia Plaintiffs Object to 10 Page Addition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14,888|Likes:
Published by Tony Ortega
The Garcias object to Scientology adding 10 pages in its response memo
The Garcias object to Scientology adding 10 pages in its response memo

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Tony Ortega on Apr 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/25/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISION
LUIS A.GARCIA SAZ and Wife, MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOSGARDIA,Plaintiffs,vs.CHRUCH OF SCIENTOLOGYRELIGIOUS TRUST; CHURCH OFSCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICEORGANIZATION,INC.;CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICEORGANIZATION,INC.,d/b/a MAGESTIC CRUISE LINES;lAS ADMINISTRATIONS,INC.,; U.S. lASMEMBERS TRUST,Defendants.
------------------------~
/
CASE NO:8:13-CV-220-T27
TBM
PLAINTIFFS'RESPONSETODEFENDANTS' OPPOSEDMOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 10PAGERELY MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs by their undersigned counsel respond to Defendants' above-citedmotion.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs,indeed,object to Defendants filing 10 more pages
of
argument on theirmotion. Local Rule
3.0l(c)
clearly provides that ordinarily repliesshould not be filed. The Ruleallows Defendants,asthe moving party,
to
file a 25 page brief butlimits
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 34 Filed 04/24/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID 858
 
Plaintiffs' response to 20 pages. Allowing Defendants an additional
10
page argument isnot only unfair
but
invites a request for surrebuttal and a never ending argument.Defendants had the same access to the documents in question as did the Plaintiffs.Defendants clearly knew that most
of
the agreements,which included the issue
of
arbitration,were signed by the Plaintiffs in California and that the services related tothose agreements were provided in California. Surely the question
of
choice
of
laws isone that the Defendants could have and should have contemplated.They chose not
to
address that in their brief. Regardless,Plaintiffs' position is that whether California orFlorida law applies,the result is the same and that arbitration should not be ordered.With respect to the declarations filed by the Plaintiffs, each
of
those declarationsis backed up
by
written Scientology policies which have been provided to the Court infull. The Court is certainly capable
of
reviewing those written policies
to
see whetherPlaintiffs' declarations are accurate.What Defendants seek to do
by
claiming that thosepolicies invoke a First Amendment privilege is to have the Court consider thedeclarations filed by the Defendants and ignore those filed
by
the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffsnever raise religious issues in their brief. To the contrary,it is Plaintiffs' position thatwhether Scientology is or is not a religion is irrelevant. Plaintiffs' complaint is basedupon fraud and Defendants cannot possibly claim that fraud is a part
of
their religion orreligious practices.
If
the Defendant were the Catholic Church instead
of
the Church
of
Scientology,there could not be a claim that it could willfully defraud people and berelieved
of
civil responsibility because
of
the religious nature
of
its practices.The Court has the documents signed
by
the Plaintiffs. Those documents,whilepurporting
to
require arbitration
of
only a claim for the return
of
payments for religious
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 34 Filed 04/24/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 859

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->