NAFC v. Scientology: Motion To Dismiss Royalmark Et Al

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 31
 
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
 
ROYALMARK
 
MANAGEMENT,
 
INC.,
 
GREATCIRCLE
 
STUDIOS,
 
LLC,
 
PREMAZON,
 
INC.,
 
AND
 
JONATHAN
 
MORETTI 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 278 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 1 of 31
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
 
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................... 2 II.
 
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES......................................................................... 5 A. This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over These Defendants .................................. 5 1.
 
General jurisdiction Does Not Lie Over These Defendants ..........................................5 2. There Is No Specific Jurisdiction Over These Defendants .............................................8 3. Web Hosting Does Not Provide a Basis for Personal Jurisdiction oOver Royalmark Management, Inc. or Great Circle, LLC ..............................................................................9 a. Royalmark Management, Inc. (28) ........................................................................12  b. GreatCircle Studios (26) ........................................................................................13 4. Neither Premazon, Inc. nor its Employee, Jonathan Moretti, Have Minimum Contacts with this State .....................................................................................................................14 a. Premazon, Inc. (8) .................................................................................................15  b. Jonathan Moretti (75) ............................................................................................17 B. Exercise Of Personal Jurisdiction as to These Defendants Violates Due Process .......19 C. Plaintiffs’ Allegation Of Civil Conspiracy Does Not Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over The Alleged Website Owners ...................................................................................21 D. Plaintiffs Fail To State Any Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted....................22 E. Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Premazon, Inc. and Moretti Should be Dismissed for Insufficient Service of Process..............................................................................................23 III.
 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................24
i
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 278 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 2 of 31
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES
 ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc
., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) ............................8
  Amberson v. Westside Story Newspaper,
110 F.Supp.2d 332 (D. N. J. 2000) ..............................11
 Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) .......................................................................................22
  Bell Atlantic Corp, v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 554 (2007) ...................................................................22
  Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Int’l, Ltd 
., 385 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 2004) ..................8
  Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
471 U.S. 462 (1985) .................................................................11
Calder v. Jones,
464 U.S. 783 (1984) ..............................................................................................9
Carden v. Arkoma Assocs
., 494 U.S. 185 (1990) ............................................................................7
Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Centers, Inc
. 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) ...... .....................................................................................................................................................9,10
Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Nolan
, 259 F.3d 209 ..10
Clark v. Tabin
, 400 F.Supp.2d 1290 (N.D. Okla. 2005) ................................................................22
  Daimler AG v. Bauman
, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ............................................................................6,7
  Doe v. Nat’l Med Servs
., 974 F.2d 143 (10th Cir. 1992) .................................................................6
  Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermillion Fine Arts, Inc
., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) ...................6,8,9
 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown
, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011) ...................................6
  Hanson v. Denckla
, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) ...................................................................................8,15
  Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall
, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) .....................................6
  Hukill v. Oklahoma Native American Domestic Violence Coalition
, 542 F.3d 794 (10th Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................................23,24
  Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash.,
326 U.S. 310 (1945) ...............................................................................6,8
Kruska v. Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc
. 2009 WL 249432 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2009) .............10
 Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA
, 511 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2007) .............................................................22
  Near v. Crivello
, 673 F.Supp.2d 1265 (D. Kan. 2009) ..................................................................22
 OMI Holdings, Inc
.
v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada,
 149 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 1998) ..........8,19,20,21
 Peay v. Bellsouth Med. Ass’n Plan
, 205 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2000) ..............................................6
ii
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 278 Filed in ED/OK on 08/01/14 Page 3 of 31

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505