UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, and wife MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS 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; IAS ADMINISTRATIONS, INC.; U.S. IAS MEMBERS TRUST, Defendants.  ______/

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 AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Defendants, IAS ADMINISTRATIONS, INC., U.S. IAS MEMBERS TRUST and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST, hereby move this Court to dismiss the complaint and this action based on the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. As more fully explained in the following memorandum in support of this motion, it has come to the attention of counsel for these defendants that (1) all of the trustees of U.S. IAS Members Trust (“USIMT”) reside in California, (2) at least one of the trustees of Church of Scientology Religious Trust (“CSRT”) resides in California, and (3) that the principal place of business of IAS Administrations, Inc. (“IASA”) is Los Angeles, California. As a consequence, diversity  jurisdiction fails because plaintiffs allege that they are residents and citizens of California.

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 90 Filed 10/21/13 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1951

 

2

 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), based on diversity, alleging that they are citizens and residents of California. (Dk. 1, ¶ 12 and 14). Plaintiffs allege that defendant USIMT has its principal place of business in California, but that it conducts substantial business in Florida; they do not allege citizenship of USIMT. (Id. at ¶ 21). Plaintiffs allege that defendant CSRT is a non-profit trust that has its  principal place of business in Florida; they do not allege citizenship of CSRT. (Id. at ¶ 15). Plaintiffs allege that defendant IASA is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of  business in Clearwater, Florida. (Id. at ¶ 20). Defendants have not answered the complaint, having instead moved to compel arbitration, therefore these allegations and the legal issue regarding citizenship of trusts for  purposes of diversity were not scrutinized by counsel until recently, after resolution of the collateral matter of disqualification of counsel that arose soon after the motion to compel arbitration was fully briefed. Upon investigation, however, counsel now has determined that there are four trustees for USIMT, all resident in, and therefore citizens of for jurisdictional  purposes, California. (See Warren Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A). Counsel also has determined that three of the trustees of CSRT also reside in California. (See Stilo Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit B). Counsel further has determined the principal place of business of IASA is in California. (See Raos Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit C.) Thus, as a matter of law there can be no diversity jurisdiction over this matter. To exercise diversity jurisdiction, diversity must be complete – each defendant must be diverse from each plaintiff. University of Southern Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 90 Filed 10/21/13 Page 2 of 13 PageID 1952

 

3

 

F.3d 405, 412 (11th Cir. 1999). In determining citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, there is what the Eleventh Circuit has referred to as a “doctrinal distinction” between corporations and all other types of business entities. Riley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002). In short, only corporations are deemed citizens of the state of incorporation whereas for other entities, the citizenship of all members must be considered. Id. at 1337-38. See also Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990). For diversity  purposes, unincorporated entities including trusts such as CSRT and USIMT are citizens of each state in which at least one of its trustees is a citizen. The diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, provides that a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. Because IASA’s principal place of business is California, it too is a California corporation for  purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Here, there cannot be complete diversity because plaintiffs, IASA, and all of the trustees of USIMT and at least one of the trustees of CSRT are citizens of California. Defendants IAS Administrations, Inc., U.S. IAS Members Trust and Church of Scientology Religious Trust therefore respectfully request that the complaint and this action be dismissed. /s/ Lee Fugate Lee Fugate FBN: 170928 lfugate@zuckerman.com  Nathan M. Berman FBN: 329230 nberman@zuckerman.com Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, Florida 33602 813-221-1010 813-223-7961 (Fax) Attorneys for Church of Scientology Religious Trust /s/ Marie Tomassi

Marie Tomassi

Florida Bar No. 772062 E-mail: mtomassi@trenam.com Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A. Bank of America Building 200 Central Avenue, Suite 1600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Telephone: (727) 820-3952 Facsimile: (727) 820-3972 Attorneys for IAS Administrations, Inc. and U.S. IAS Members Trust

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 90 Filed 10/21/13 Page 3 of 13 PageID 1953