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 NARCONON INTERNATIONAL

J

OHN

H.

 

T

UCKER

, OBA 9110 jtucker@rhodesokla.com C

OLIN

H.

 

T

UCKER

, OBA 16325 chtucker@rhodesokla.com K

ERRY

R.

 

L

EWIS

, OBA 16519 klewis@rhodesokla.com D

ENELDA

L.

 

R

ICHARDSON

, OBA 20103 drichardson@rhodesokla.com RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE P.O. Box 21100 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74121-1100 Phone: (918) 582-1173; Fax: (918) 592-3390

 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, Narconon International

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 295 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 1 of 36

 

 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 1 LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................... 3 A. F

EDERAL

R

ULE OF

C

IVIL

P

ROCEDURE

 12(B)(2) ........................................................ 3 B. F

EDERAL

R

ULE OF

C

IVIL

P

ROCEDURE

 12(B)(6) ........................................................ 5 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 6 I. T

HE

C

OURT

L

ACKS

P

ERSONAL

J

URISDICTION OVER

I

NTERNATIONAL

 (W

HETHER

P

REMISED AS

G

ENERAL OR

S

PECIFIC

J

URISDICTION

) .......................................... 6 A. R

EQUIREMENTS FOR

A

SSERTING

G

ENERAL

J

URISDICTION

 O

VER

I

NTERNATIONAL

 ..................................................................................................... 6 B. R

EQUIREMENTS FOR

A

SSERTING

S

PECIFIC

J

URISDICTION

 

OVER

I

NTERNATIONAL

 ..................................................................................................... 9 C. I

NTERNATIONAL

L

ACKS THE

M

INIMUM

C

ONTACTS TO

 S

UPPORT

G

ENERAL OR

S

PECIFIC

J

URISDICTION OVER

 I

NTERNATIONAL

 ............................................................................................................. 10 D. P

LAINTIFFS

’

 

“W

EBSITE

”

 

A

LLEGATIONS DO NOT

E

STABLISH

 P

ERSONAL

J

URISDICTION OVER

I

NTERNATIONAL

 ..................................................... 13 E. P

LAINTIFFS

’

 

“

C

ONSPIRACY

”

 

A

LLEGATIONS DO NOT

S

UPPORT

 P

ERSONAL

J

URISDICTION OVER

I

NTERNATIONAL

 ..................................................... 17 II. E

XERCISE OF

J

URISDICTION OVER

I

NTERNATIONAL WOULD

 V

IOLATE

D

UE

P

ROCESS

.............................................................................................................. 21 A. T

HE

B

URDEN ON THE

D

EFENDANT OF

L

ITIGATING IN THE

F

ORUM

 ............................................................................................................................. 21

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 295 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 2 of 36

 

 iii

B. T

HE

F

ORUM

S

TATE

’

S

I

NTEREST IN

A

DJUDICATING THE

 D

ISPUTE

 .......................................................................................................................... 21 C. P

LAINTIFFS

’

 

I

NTEREST IN

C

ONVENIENT AND

 E

FFECTIVE

R

ELIEF

 ......................................................................................................... 22 D. T

HE

I

NTERSTATE

J

UDICIAL

S

YSTEM

’

S

I

NTEREST

 

IN

O

BTAINING

E

FFICIENT

R

ESOLUTION

...................................................................... 22 E. S

TATE

I

NTEREST IN

F

URTHERING

F

UNDAMENTAL

 S

UBSTANTIVE

S

OCIAL

P

OLICIES

 ................................................................................... 23 III. A

LTERNATIVELY

,

 

I

NTERNATIONAL

A

DOPTS THE

A

RGUMENTS

M

ADE BY

 C

ERTAIN

D

EFENDANTS IN THEIR

M

OTION TO

D

ISMISS

B

ASED ON

 P

LAINTIFFS

’

 

F

AILURE TO

S

TATE A

C

LAIM

 [Dkt. 287] .......................................................... 24 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 25

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 295 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 3 of 36