UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMP A DIVISION LUIS
A
GARCIA SAZ and Wife, MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARDIA, Plaintiffs, vs. CHRUCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST, et
al
, Defendants. CASE NO: 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM
PLAINTIFFS BENCH MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs, LUIS
A
GARCIA SAZ and MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA, by
and through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully file this Bench Memorandum in Opposition
to
Defendants Motion
to
Compel Arbitration.
I
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The evidence shows that there are
no
procedures for conducting arbitration and that the rules
o
the Committee
o
Evidence cannot apply
to
arbitration. This arbitration
is
, therefore,
procedurally unconscionable. An arbitration by a declared person, such as the Garcias, before a panel
o
three Scientologists in good standing cannot possibly be fair because
o
the policies
o
the Church
o
Scientology, which make such procedures inherently unfair. The arbitration procedure is,
therefore, substantively unconscionable.
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 170 Filed 02/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3223
Contrary to Defendants' belief, this Court -not the Church -must decide the initial question
o
arbitrability.
See Riley Manufacturing
Co
.
Inc
v. Anchor Glass Container
Corp
157 F.3d 775, 779
1Oth
Cir. 1998). Indeed, Defendants' motion
to
compel arbitration cannot be won by prohibiting the Court from exercising its inherent power to decide its own jurisdiction.
II LEGAL MEMORANDUM
On October 1
7,
20
13,
this Court ordered the Defendants
to
provide proof that there were existing written procedures governing Scientology arbitration. [DE 89] On October 24, 2013, Defendants filed a response that The Church
o
Scientology International Justice Chief (IJC) has ruled that the procedures and rules governing the Committee
o
Evidence apply in arbitration proceedings. [emphasis added] [DE
91]
That statement was simply untrue. On September 24, 2014, this Court entered an Order requiring Defendants
to
provide evidence that the Chief Justice had ruled that the Committee
o
Evidence rules applied
to
arbitration. [DE 131] Defendants filed a sworn declaration
o
Mike Ellis which did not tell the Court how or when he had ruled a year earlier that the rules
o
the Committee
o
Evidence applied
to
arbitration. Instead, Ellis indicated that he had recently received a request for arbitration. [DE 132] That is not the same point.
t
is undisputed that there has never been a single arbitration in the history
o
the Church.
t
is also undisputed that this was the first request for arbitration that had ever been made. [Ellis 39:
19]
Plaintiffs requested every document that surrounded the recent request for arbitration and were provided with a redacted letter
o
September 30, 2014, written six days after this Court's
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 170 Filed 02/16/15 Page 2 of 13 PageID 3224
Order requiring that the Defendants provide evidence
of
the alleged ruling by the International Justice Chief a year earlier.
In
the deposition
of
Mike Ellis, the International Justice Chief who filed the Declaration insisted he could not remember any
of
the facts surrounding the recent request for arbitration other than the fact that the person requesting arbitration was a Scientologist. (Ellis
55
:20, 58:9,
60:9, 61:5) When presented with an unredacted copy
of
the September 30, 2014letter written
to
Mr. Jonathan Ramsay, who is not a Scientologist, Ellis recanted his testimony to avoid
prosecution for perjury. (Ellis 69:2) The true facts are that Mr. Ramsay has never been a Scientologist and was requesting the return
of 17
,000.00 that his father had paid
to
take Scientology courses which were never taken because his father died prior to being able
to
take those courses. (Ellis 75:20) Defendants failed to provide the documents that showed they had denied Mr. Ramsay s claim in May 2013, and
that they never contacted him until three days after this Court s September Order. At that time,
he
received an unsolicited request for his physical address
so
that the IJC could send the letter in question. (Ellis 92:
17 In
his deposition, Mr. Ellis claimed that the prior ruling referred
to
in Defendants response related
to
a casual conversation
he
had had with a person who asked him out
of
curiosity what rules applied to arbitration and
he
responded that the rules
of
the Committee
of
Evidence applied. (Ellis 46:8) There is no record
of
any kind concerning that conversation and the Defendants have failed
to
call the only witness who could confirm
it.
(Ellis 200:
19
Mr. Ellis never mentioned this supposed ruling in his declaration even though it was filed by the Defendants
to
attempt
to
comply with this Court s Order
of
September 24, 2014, requiring
Defendants
to
provide all evidence that
he
had ruled on this issue.
t
is patently obvious that the
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 170 Filed 02/16/15 Page 3 of 13 PageID 3225