Scribd

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.

/ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE SCIENTOLOGY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

Plaintiffs, Luis A. Garcia Saz and Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia (the “Garcias”), in accordance with Rule 3.01(b) of the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida, submit their memorandum in opposition to the motion to disqualify the Garcias’ counsel filed by Defendants Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. (FSO) and Church of Scientology Flag Ship Service Organization, Inc. (FSSO) (collectively referred to herein as the “Scientology Defendants”).

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is a fraud suit. The Garcias were fraudulently induced to give significant amounts of money to the Scientology Defendants based on statements they made that were not true. The Scientology Defendants knowingly misrepresented the amount of money that was needed to

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 38 Filed 05/28/13 Page 1 of 15 PageID 1005

2 complete specific projects. This inducement caused the Garcias to give money that was neither needed nor used for those purposes. This action seeks to uncover that fraud and remedy the injury that directly resulted from it. In response, the Scientology Defendants sought to compel arbitration conducted before a panel of Scientology arbitrators without any established arbitration procedures or principles. That motion is pending. This motion now seeks to disqualify Robert Johnson and two separate and independent law firms chosen by the Garcias to represent them, alleging that, fifteen years ago, Mr. Johnson represented the Scientology Defendants in connection with (i) the acquisition of real property in Clearwater; (ii) unrelated claims by unrelated, unnamed parties, and (iii) prior litigation in the

Williams

case. The Scientology Defendants argue that these alleged prior representations create a direct conflict under Rule 4-1.9 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and require Mr. Johnson’s disqualification. Notwithstanding their supposition and belief, the Scientology Defendants have not presented a scintilla of evidence that (i) any issue in this case was ever discussed with Mr. Johnson, (ii) he has any confidential information about it, or (iii) he even knew the Garcias during the time period he represented the Scientology Defendants. Despite this, the Scientology Defendants allege that Mr. Johnson gained an unfair informational advantage on the “confidences, strategies, litigation and settlement policies and practices” of the Scientology Defendants. (Defs’ Mot. at p. 2.) On this precarious basis, the Scientology Defendants also seek to impute a generic informational advantage to all the Garcias’ counsel of record (

i.e

., the independent law firms of Babbitt Johnson Osborne & LeClainche, P.A. and Weil Quaranta, P.A.)


3 and to disqualify them.

1

Their final theory for disqualification of all plaintiffs’ counsel of record rests on alleged communications with two former Scientology-related officials (Marty Rathbun and Michael Rinder), who indisputably left the Church of Scientology in 2004 and 2007, respectively, and since then have openly criticized the Scientology Organization in the public media and in other, unrelated litigation. The Scientology Defendants allege – for the

first

time in over six years of public debate – that through communications in this case with Messrs. Rathbun and Rinder, plaintiffs’ counsel unfairly acquired knowledge of the “legal strengths and weaknesses of church practices and positions, how to respond to intrusive discovery, and other matters of legal strategy and tactics.” (Defs’ Mot. at p. 2.) The

motion to disqualify is meritless, nothing more than a dilatory litigation tactic, and should be denied.

First,

the alleged prior representation by Mr. Johnson is not the same or substantially similar to the parties or the issues in this case.

Second,

there is no legitimate basis to impute any claimed conflict of Mr. Johnson to the separate law firms representing the Garcias. Rule 4-1.10 is limited to situations in which counsel associate

in a firm

and does not apply between

separate

firms. In addition, the

Scientology Defendants have not demonstrated that the Garcias’ other counsel have

actual knowledge

of any

1

Babbit Johnson Osborne & LeClainche, P.A. will be referred to in this Memorandum as “Babbitt Johnson,” and Weil Quaranta, P.A., now known as Weil Quaranta McGovern, P.A., will be referred to as “Weil.” In response to the Scientology Defendants’ motion to disqualify counsel for the Garcias, Robert Johnson of Gray Robinson, Ted Babbitt of Babbitt Johnson and Ronald Weil of Weil, submit their Declarations, which are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively. In addition, Michael Rinder and Marty Rathbun submit their Declarations, which are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibits D and E, respectively. The Declarations will be cited in this Memorandum as: Johnson Decl. at ¶ __; Babbitt Decl. at p. __; Weil Decl. at ¶ __; Rinder Decl. at ¶ __; and Rathbun Decl. at ¶ __.
