UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LUIS GARCIA, and wife, ROCIO GARCIA, Plaintiffs, Vs. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC d/b/a MAJESTIC CRUISE LINES; U.S. IAS MEMBERS TRUST. Defendants

 / PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs, Luis Garcia and Rocio Garcia (hereinafter the “Garcia Plaintiffs”) for their Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Consolidated Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings [D.E. 8] (“hereinafter MC&S”) hereby state as follows:

I.

 

INTRODUCTION

At the outset, it should be clear that none of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs here are in any way dependent upon a written contract which also requires arbitration. Plaintiffs’ claims are for fraud, violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and breach of contract for failure to return deposits for advanced deposits for religious services. Nothing about the subject agreements’ titles (Enrollment Applications), or the stated purpose of those agreements as being required on each occasion Plaintiffs’ were enrolled and then approved to receive specific “religious services” reasonably provides a connection to the claims asserted

 

2 here. Nothing about the religious services purchased provides any credible connection for Plaintiffs to have abandoned all manner of civil claims and the forums in which such claims would be brought regardless of whether those claims relate in any way to the services Plaintiffs  purchased. Defendants’ MC&S is also curious in that expansive argument is presented that each of Defendants and collectively all of them are immune to civil suit as religious bodies. Their motion however, anamolously states that they

are not 

 seeking a ruling on that issue at this time. Instead, they suggest that, along with many traditional churches, they prescribe and allow for arbitration of “non-ecclesiastical” disputes as opposed to doctrinal or religious disputes. Whether the complaint states a proper cause of action for return of funds solicited by false and misleading  practices, and whether first amendment protections apply, are irrelevant distractions as neither are currently before the Court. While arbitration clauses are sometimes used by traditional churches to resolve commercial or non-ecclesiastical matters, Defendants are a far cry from a traditional church or religion routinely resolving such disputes in a predictable, fair or impartial manner. In fact, as is set forth in the supporting declarations of Plaintiffs

1

, former Scientologists such as Plaintiffs are viewed as “Suppressive Persons,” and are barred from further communications with church members, inclusive of family members, who retain their church affiliation. Unlike traditional churches which promote “non-ecclesiastical” arbitrations, Defendants cannot point to a single arbitration proceeding initiated and concluded pursuant to a prescribed set of rules and  procedures. That is because there have been no arbitrations and there are no defined arbitral rules or procedures which have ever been previously defined or employed.

1

 

Hereinafter, all citations to the Declarations filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion, including the Declarations of Luis Garcia, Mark Rathbun, Christie Collbran, Bert Schippers, Donald Koon, Nancy Roby Wise, Randall C. Wise, Haydn James, Karry S. Campbell, and Scott E. Campbell shall be noted as “([Last Name] Decl. at ¶ ___)”.

 

 

3 Plaintiffs’ supporting declarations make clear that the absence of an arbitration history is not emblematic of some abiding contentment with Defendants’ organizations. There have been no arbitrations, nor are there set and established arbitration procedures or principles precisely  because a panel of Scientology arbitrators must by definition also subscribe to the doctrinal  belief that a claimant or litigant is a Suppressive Person who is no longer permitted to communicate in any fashion with any church member. (Rathbun Decl. at ¶ 10). Whatever else may be said about other “non-ecclesiastical” arbitrations promoted by other more traditional churches, none of those churches declare the litigant an apostate and subject their families to retaliation for any breach of a non-communication protocol. Defendants have a lengthy and well documented history, as well as corroborating published bulletins of their doctrine, which demonstrate that even a commercial or non-ecclesiastical claim is a call to arms and an attack on the doctrine of Scientology itself. Disaffected former Scientologists are termed “Suppressive Persons.” An arbitration process presided over by Scientologist panelists holding the same doctrinal views, under the same threat of “suppressive personhood,” whose families are also subject to the same harassment and threats, without rules and procedures of any kind other than those mandating Scientologist panelists, is not authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act and respectfully should not be authorized by this Court. “Evident partiality,” another standard referenced by several of Defendants authorities as being required to annul a commitment to arbitrate, is palpable here. It is not the product of speculation or surmise. Defendants mention the 28 or so Enrollment Applications and the arbitration clause contained in each. They fail to clarify which one(s) allegedly applies to this dispute, or whether as they appear to suggest, that they all do. (MC&S at p. 16). They also fail to mention that virtually all were executed in California, or that they

are not uniform

 in addressing the mandated