419029v1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., a Nevada Non-Profit Corporation; et al., Plaintiffs, v. NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a California Non-Profit Corporation; et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 6:14-cv-00187-RAW
MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT DAVID MISCAVIGE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Jeffrey K. Riffer, Cal. Bar No. 87016
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
2049 Century Park East, 27
th
Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 746-4406 [Admitted Pro Hac Vice] David L. Bryant, OBA No. 1262 David E. Keglovits, OBA No. 14259 Amelia A. Fogleman, OBA No. 16221
GABLEGOTWALS
1100 ONEOK Plaza 100 West Fifth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4217 (918) 595-4800
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DAVID MISCAVIGE
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 454 Filed in ED/OK on 10/30/14 Page 1 of 37
419029v1
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
II.
THE PARTIES .................................................................................................... 3
III.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................... 6
A.
THERE IS NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER MR. MISCAVIGE ............................................................................................. 6
1.
Basic Principles of Personal Jurisdiction ..................................... 6
2.
There is No General Jurisdiction .................................................. 8
3.
There is No Specific Jurisdiction .................................................. 8
4.
Plaintiffs’ “Conspiracy” Allegation Should Be Disregarded ........ 9
5.
The Exercise of Jurisdiction Over Mr. Miscavige Would Be Unreasonable, Unfair, and in Violation of Due Process ...... 10
a.
Burden On The Defendant Of Litigating In The Forum ................................................................................ 11
b.
Forum State’s Interest In Adjudicating The Dispute ...... 11
c.
Plaintiffs’ Interest In Convenient And Effective Relief .................................................................................. 12
d.
Interstate Judicial System’s Interest In Obtaining Efficient Resolution .......................................................... 12
e.
State Interest In Furthering Substantive Social Policies ............................................................................... 13
B.
ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM .......... 14
1.
Plaintiffs’ Claims and Basic Trademark Principles ................... 14
2.
There is No Secondary Liability under Trademark Law ........... 19
a.
There is No Vicarious Liability ........................................ 19
b.
There is No Contributory Liability .................................. 19
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 454 Filed in ED/OK on 10/30/14 Page 2 of 37
419029v1
ii
c.
There is No “Conspiracy Liability” under Trademark Law ................................................................ 19
d.
In Any Event, Plaintiffs Have Not Adequately Alleged Civil Conspiracy ................................................... 21
i.
Civil Conspiracy Requires Damages, and Plaintiffs Have None .............................................. 21
ii.
Plaintiffs Failed to Plead Any
Facts
Regarding Mr. Miscavige’s Involvement In Any “Conspiracy” to Misuse Plaintiffs’ Trademarks ............................................................ 21
C.
THERE SHOULD BE NO LEAVE TO AMEND ................................... 24
IV.
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 25
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 454 Filed in ED/OK on 10/30/14 Page 3 of 37