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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
NAFC v. Scientology: RTC's Motion to Dismiss

NAFC v. Scientology: RTC's Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 33 |Likes:
Published by Tony Ortega
Scientology's controlling entity, the Religious Technology Center, asks to be let out of the NAFC's lawsuit
Scientology's controlling entity, the Religious Technology Center, asks to be let out of the NAFC's lawsuit

More info:

Published by: Tony Ortega on Jul 24, 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

08/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
{1270626;}
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC ) COUNSELORS, INC., a Nevada Non-Profit ) Corporation; et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 6:14-cv-00187-RAW ) 1. NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a ) California Non-Profit Corporation; et al., ) ) Defendants. )
MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, INC. FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
David L. Bryant, OBA No. 1262 David E. Keglovits, OBA No. 14259 Amelia A. Fogleman, OBA No. 16221
GABLEGOTWALS
1100 ONEOK Plaza 100 West Fifth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4217 (918) 595-4800
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 247 Filed in ED/OK on 07/01/14 Page 1 of 25
 
 
{1270626;}
i
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... 3 I. THE COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER RTC ............... 3 A. Law of General or Specific Personal Jurisdiction ................................. 3 B. RTC Lacks the Minimum Contacts to Support General or Specific Jurisdiction Over RTC ............................................................. 6
1. RTC has no contacts with Oklahoma ............................................. 6 2. The allegation that RTC controls Narconon is baseless ................. 6 3. Plaintiffs’ “website” allegations cannot establish personal  jurisdiction over RTC.................................................................... 7 4. Plaintiffs’ “conspiracy” allegations do not support personal  jurisdiction over RTC.................................................................... 8
C. The Exercise of Jurisdiction Over RTC Would Violate Due Process .................................................................................................. 11
1. Burden on the defendant of litigating in the forum ...................... 11 2. Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute ........................ 12 3. Plaintiffs’ interest in convenient and effective relief .................... 12 4. Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining efficient resolution .................................................................................... 13 5. State interest in furthering fundamental substantive social policies ....................................................................................... 13
II. ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST RTC SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM............. 14 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 18
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 247 Filed in ED/OK on 07/01/14 Page 2 of 25
 
 
{1270626;}
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
  Am. Educ. Corp. v. Chase
, 2006 WL 2044932 47788 (W.D. Okla. July 13, 2006) ..................................................... 3
 Am. Land Program, Inc. v. Bonaventura Uitgevers Maatschappij, N.V.
, 710 F.2d 1449 (10th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................ 9
 Annie Oakley Eaters., Inc. v. Sunset Tan Corporate & Consulting, LLC 
, 703 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Ind. 2010) ............................................................................ 11
 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................ 16, 17
 Bridges v. Lane
, 351 Fed. Appx. 284 (10th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................. 16
 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) .................................................................................................... 4, 5
 Busch v. Viacom Int’l, Inc.
, 477 F. Supp. 2d 764 (N.D. Tex. 2007) ........................................................................... 11
Clark v. Tabin
, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Okla. 2005) ...................................................................... 8, 9
 Daimler AG v. Bauman
, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ............................................................................................... 4, 5, 7
 Doe v. Nat’l Med. Servs.
, 974 F.2d 143 (10th Cir. 1992) .......................................................................................... 4
 Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermillion Fine Arts, Inc.
, 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 3, 4, 5
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thyssen Mining Construction of Canada, Ltd.
, 703 F.3d 488 (10th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................... 5
 Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall
, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) ........................................................................................................ 4
 Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash.
, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ................................................................................................ 3, 4, 5
Kerber v. Qwest Group Life Ins. Plan
, 647 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 15
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 247 Filed in ED/OK on 07/01/14 Page 3 of 25

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)//-->