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

 

DEFENDANTS

 

NARCONON

 

SOUTH

 

TEXAS, NARCONON

 

EASTERN

 

UNITED

 

STATES

 

AND

 

NARCONON

 

SPRING

 

HILL AND

 

BRIEF

 

IN

 

SUPPORT

Respectfully Submitted, Charles D. Neal, Jr., OBA #6591 cdn@steidley-neal.com Rachel D. Parrilli, OBA #18762 rdp@steidley-neal.com Stacie L. Hixon, OBA #19477 slh@steidley-neal.com CityPlex Towers, 53

rd 

 Floor 2448 East 81

st

 Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74137 (918) 664-4612 telephone (918) 664-4133 facsimile

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 277 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 1 of 21

 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 2 II.

 

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES......................................................................... 4 A. This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over These Defendants .................................. 4 1.

 

General Jurisdiction Does Not Lie Over These Defendants ..........................................4 2. There is No Specific Jurisdiction Over These Defendants .............................................6 a.

 

 Narconon South Texas (14) ....................................................................................7  b.

 

 Narconon Eastern United States (15) .....................................................................9 c.

 

 Narconon Spring Hill (10) ....................................................................................11 B. Plaintiffs’ Allegation of Civil Conspiracy Does Not Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over These Defendants ......................................................................................................12 C. Plaintiffs Fail to State Any Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted .....................13 D. Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Narconon Spring Hill Should Be Dismissed for Insufficient Service of Process ..............................................................................................................13 III.

 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................15

i

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 277 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 2 of 21

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES

 ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc

., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) ............................7

  Asahi v. Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Cal

., 480 U.S. 102 (1987) .......................10

  Ashcroft v. Iqbal

, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) .......................................................................................13

  Ashton v. Florala Memorial Hosp

., 2006 WL 2864413 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 5, 2006) .......................10

  Bell Atlantic Corp, v. Twombly

, 550 U.S. 554 (2007) ...................................................................13

  Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Int’l, Ltd 

., 385 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 2004) ..................6

 Calder v. Jones,

464 U.S. 783 (1984) ..............................................................................................7

Clark v. Tabin

, 400 F.Supp.2d 1290 (N.D. Okla. 2005) ................................................................12

 Colson v. Samson Hair Restoration

, LLC, 837 F.Supp.2d 564 (D.S.C. 2011) .............................10

  Daimler AG v. Bauman

, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ............................................................................5,6

  Doe v. Nat’l Med Servs

., 974 F.2d 143 (10th Cir. 1992) .................................................................5

  Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermillion Fine Arts, Inc

., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) ...................4,6,7

 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown

, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011) ...................................5

  Hanson v. Denckla

, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228 (1958) ................................................................6

  Harlow v. Children’s Hosp

., 432 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) .............................................................10

 Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall

, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) .....................................4

  Hukill v. Oklahoma Native American Domestic Violence Coalition

, 542 F.3d 794 (10th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................................................................................14

  Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash.,

326 U.S. 310, (1945) ...........................................................................4,5,6

 Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA

, 511 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2007) .............................................................12

  Near v. Crivello

, 673 F.Supp.2d 1265 (D. Kan. 2009) ..................................................................13

 OMI Holdings, Inc

.

v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada

, 149 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 1998) .........................6

 Peay v. Bellsouth Med. Ass’n Plan

, 205 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2000) ..............................................4

Shrader v. Biddinger 

, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................5,6,7,8

 Soma Medical Int’l v. Standard Chartered Bank 

, 196 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 1999) ........................7

ii

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 277 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 3 of 21