Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Garcia v. Scientology: Order denying Scientology motion to dismiss

Garcia v. Scientology: Order denying Scientology motion to dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,093 |Likes:
Published by Tony Ortega
Judge Whittemore grants Garcia request to file amended complaint after dropping three defendants
Judge Whittemore grants Garcia request to file amended complaint after dropping three defendants

More info:

Published by: Tony Ortega on May 02, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

05/03/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF
FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MARIA
DEL
ROCIO
BURGOS GARCIA
and
LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, Plaintiffs,
v
CHURCH
OF
SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST,
CHURCH
OF
SCIENTOLOGY
FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.,
CHURCH
OF
SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SHIP
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., IAS ADMINISTRATIONS, INC.
and
U.S. IAS MEMBERS TRUST, Defendants.
~ ~
ORDER Case No: 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBM
BEFORE
THE
COURT
is the Second Amended Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Amend Complaint and Memorandum
of
Law
(Dkt. 108) attaching a proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 108-1), and Defendants' Flag Church and Ship Church, M.emorandum
in
Opposition (Dkt. 110). Also before the Court is Defendants IAS Administrations, Inc.'s, U.S. IAS Members
Trust s
and Church
of
Scientology Religious
Trust s
Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Dkt. 90) and Plaintiffs' response (Dkt. 93). The parties were permitted to conduct jurisdictional discovery, following which they filed additional briefing regarding diversity jurisdiction (Dkts. 104 112). Upon consideration, Plaintiffs' Motion to
Amend
(Dkt. 108) is GRANTED. Defendants' motions (Dkts. 93 96) are DENIED as moot. 1
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 113 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 2694
 
I.
ackground
Plaintiffs Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia and Luis Garcia Saz originally filed a complaint against five Scientology entities, alleging claims
of
fraud, breach
of
contract, and unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with monetary contributions and payments made to various Scientology entities.
1
According to the Complaint (Dkt. 1 , Plaintiffs are former members
of
the Church
of
Scientology who contributed hundreds
of
housands
of
dollars to these various entities as a result
of
false and misleading representations and/or omissions regarding the Super Power Project and various humanitarian initiatives.
2
In addition, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs paid deposits towards counseling services ( auditing ), training, and accommodations that were never provided.
3
Defendants moved to compel arbitration
of
all
of
Plaintiffs' claims in accordance with several purported agreements to arbitrate contained in the numerous Religious Services Enrollment Applications, Agreements and General Releases Plaintiffs completed as a prerequisite to participating
in
Scientology religious training and services (Dkts. 8, 15, 18). While these motions were pending, Defendants CSRT, USIMT, and IASA filed a motion to dismiss based on lack
of
diversity jurisdiction (Dkt. 90). Specifically, CSRT, USIMT, and IASA contend that they, like
The five Scientology entities currently named as defendants are: Church
of
Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. ( Flag Church ), Church
of
Scientology Flag Ship Service Organization, Inc. ( Ship Church ), Church
of
Scientology Religious Trust ( CSRT''), IAS Administrations, Inc. ( IASA ), and U.S. IAS Members Trust ( USIMT ).
2
The Super Power Project involves the construction
of
a Scientology facility in Clearwater, Florida, which took over eighteen years to complete and open (Dkt.
1
126 .
Plaintiffs allegedly contributed a total of$340,000 to this project
id,
- i
32). The humanitarian initiatives involve funding for various church campaigns and relief efforts
id,
1153-68). Plaintiffs allegedly contributed a total of$40,4IO to these humanitarian initiatives
id,
1118 .
3
Plaintiffs deposited $3 7 413 .56 with Flag Church and $31,445 .45 with Ship Church for these services and accommodations (Dkt.
1
11 41-42).
2
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 113 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2695
 
Plaintiffs, are citizens
o
California, and therefore diversity jurisdiction is lacking. The case was stayed pending resolution
o
he jurisdictional issue (Dkt. 100). Following the ninety-day period for discovery, the parties were given leave to file supplemental memoranda in connection with the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 102). Two days before Defendants' memorandum was due, Plaintiffs filed the a motion to amend their Complaint based on new information learned through discovery (Dkt. 103). The motion to amend was denied without prejudice to refiling it with a proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 105). Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to amend (Dkt. 108), attaching their proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 108-1
.
Plaintiffs claim to have discovered that Defendant Flag Church spearheaded all activities relating to the other entities which have given rise to this suit (Dkt. 108 at 4). As such, Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint drops CSRT, USIMT, and IASA as defendants, purporting to resolve the diversity jurisdictional issue.
4
The proposed amended complaint revises several paragraphs to conform the allegations to the contention that Flag Church and Ship Church were the real actors in the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs contend that dropping CSRT, USIMT, and IASA should be permitted as these entities are nominal and dispensable parties. Plaintiffs assert that none
o
the parties will be harmed by dismissal
o
CSRT, USIMT, and IASA as their presence provides no tactical advantage to Flag Church and Ship Church and the close inter-relationship among the Scientology entities permits those entities to resolve the sharing
o
damages amongst themselves (Dkt. 112 at 3). Alternatively, Plaintiffs suggest that CSRT, USIMT, and IASA could be dismissed with prejudice.
id.).
4
Plaintiffs do not dispute that the evidence Defendants submitted with their supplemental memorandum in support
o
he motion
to
dismiss reflects that CSRT, USIMT, and IASA are not diverse from Plaintiffs (Dkt. 112 at 2 n.
I .
3
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 113 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 12 PageID 2696

You're Reading a Free Preview

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