{1276351;}

1

 

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. )

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, INC. FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

Defendant Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) submits this brief in further support of its Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion,” Dkt. No. 247) and in reply to Plaintiffs’ Response in opposition to that Motion (the “Response,” Dkt. No. 261). The Response makes clear that Plaintiffs’ attempt to establish jurisdiction over RTC

and 

 to state a claim against RTC essentially boil down to a single faulty premise –

i.e.,

that RTC engaged in a conspiracy to misuse Plaintiffs’ logos, trademarks, and certifications. Because Plaintiffs have failed to allege

any

 facts supporting such a claim, the Court should dismiss RTC from this action.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES I.

 

THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER RTC. A. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish General Jurisdiction Over RTC.

Without even citing – much less discussing the application of – the Supreme Court’s recent decision on general jurisdiction decision in

 Daimler AG v. Bauman

, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), Plaintiffs contend that this Court has general jurisdiction over RTC because RTC’s chairman

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 301 Filed in ED/OK on 08/04/14 Page 1 of 13

 

 

2

{1276351;}

 allegedly “micromanages all portions of Scientology programs” and Defendant Narconon Arrowhead is an Oklahoma resident that allegedly utilizes Scientology materials in its work. (Resp. at 11.) Therefore, Plaintiffs assert, RTC must “micromanage” Narconon Arrowhead, creating “systematic and continuous contacts with this forum” that are sufficient to create general  jurisdiction.

1

 (

 Id 

.) Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are unsupported and untrue,

2

 but more importantly also irrelevant, because they could not support general jurisdiction over RTC even if they were true. The Supreme Court, in

 Daimler,

soundly rejected the notion that an organization is subject to personal jurisdiction in any forum where it may be shown to routinely conduct business. The question “is not whether a foreign corporation’s in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense ‘continuous and systematic,’ it is whether the corporation’s affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render it essentially

at home

 in the forum State.” 134 S. Ct. at 762 (emphasis added). In

 Daimler 

, the Supreme Court concluded that a German corporation was not subject to general jurisdiction in California even if the contacts of its American subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“MBUSA”), could be imputed to it. MBUSA has multiple facilities in California, including a regional office, and reigns as the largest supplier of luxury vehicles to the California market – sales that comprised 2.4 percent of Daimler’s worldwide sales.

 Id.

 at 752. Yet the Court deemed these extensive contacts insufficient to create

1

 Notably, Plaintiffs do not refute the declaration testimony of RTC President Warren McShane including RTC’s lack of contacts with Oklahoma that was submitted as Exhibit 1 to RTC’s Motion.

2

 The documents submitted by Plaintiffs are not only unauthenticated, but they also include hearsay (sometimes multiple layers of hearsay) and otherwise inadmissible materials. RTC reserves its rights to object to the documents’ admissibility in the future, if necessary. But, even assuming their validity for purposes of this Motion only, they are irrelevant to the issue before the Court.

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 301 Filed in ED/OK on 08/04/14 Page 2 of 13

 

 

3

{1276351;}

 general jurisdiction, noting that “[a] corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them.”

 Id.

at 762 n.20. Thus, applying

 Daimler 

, one appellate court has recognized that general jurisdiction now “extends beyond an entity’s state of incorporation and principal place of business only in the exceptional cases where its contacts with another forum are so substantial as to render it ‘at home’ in that state.”

Sonera Holding B.V. v. Cukurova Holding A.

, 750 F.3d 221, 223 (2d Cir. 2014). Here, even if Plaintiffs’ allegations were correct regarding the degree of oversight exercised by RTC regarding Narconon Arrowhead, which they are not, these allegations simply do not render RTC sufficiently “at home” in Oklahoma to establish general jurisdiction. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ basic premise is that RTC micromanages

all

 Scientology programs, and their Complaint demonstrates the worldwide reach of those programs. (

See

Compl. ¶¶ 3-84 (alleging that Defendants reside in at least 14 states, Canada, and the United Kingdom).) Thus, Plaintiffs fall far short of establishing the type of “exceptional” circumstances necessary under

 Daimler

to find general jurisdiction over a defendant outside of the forum in which it resides.

B.

 

No Specific Jurisdiction Exists Because Plaintiffs Fail To Establish A Nexus Between RTC’s Alleged Contacts With Oklahoma And Their Claims In This Case.

In support of their claim that this Court has specific jurisdiction over RTC, Plaintiffs cite the following three factual allegations:

3

 

3

 In their Complaint, Plaintiffs claimed personal jurisdiction over all Defendants based on their operation of “active websites.” (Compl ¶ 86.) In the Motion, RTC demonstrated that RTC’s website could not provide the basis for personal jurisdiction over RTC in Oklahoma. (Resp. at 7-8.) Failing even to address this issue in their Response, Plaintiffs apparently have abandoned this theory of jurisdiction as to RTC.

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 301 Filed in ED/OK on 08/04/14 Page 3 of 13