Scribd

1

UNITED STATES DISTRIST 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. ________________________________________/

DEFENDANTS

’

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF

S’

MOTION TO LIFT STAY BECAUSE OF ALLEGED ARBITRATION WAIVER

Plaintiffs attempt to create the illusion that they have been stymied by Defendants in their attempt to select an arbitrator -- a Scientologist in good standing. In reality, the Plaintiffs have created the very delay of which they now complain.

Plaintiffs’

real purpose is to re-litigate the issues this Court already has decided. Plaintiffs spent the first four months following this Court

’s

March 13, 2015 arbitration order seeking a new hearing and attempting to appeal a non-final order. Their motion for new hearing was denied by this Court (See Doc. 198), and on July 30, 2015, their appeal was dismissed,

sua sponte

, for lack of jurisdiction by the Eleventh Circuit. (See Doc. 205). On August 12, 2015, f

ive months after this Court’s order compelling arbitration

, the Plaintiffs requested arbitration and designated their first potential arbitrator -- Tony DePhillips.

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 210 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID 4105

2

Exhibit 1, Babbitt email dated August 12, 2015. Tony DePhillips is a well-known disaffected former Scientologist. An internet search reveals that he has been blogging or posting his disaffection with Scientology since at least March, 2014. Moreover, Tony DePhillips was at the time of the designation, and presumably still is, a client of Mr. Babbitt, the Garcia

’

s counsel, who has asserted a Garcia-type claim on his behalf against the Church. Plaintiffs proposed DePhillips for no purpose other than to evoke a response that he was not in good standing with the Church. In addition to designating an unqualified arbitrator, the Garcias otherwise failed to comply with the arbitration procedure. The arbitration procedures are set forth in the Enrollment Agreements

and in this Court’s

order dated March 13, 2015: In summary, the arbitration clauses in the Enrollment Applications include the essential terms of an enforceable arbitration agreement under Florida law. They describe how the Garcias initiate arbitration ("I will submit a request for arbitration to the IJ

C…),

identify the matters which would be arbitrated

(“

any dispute claim or controversy

…”)

, describe the selection of arbitrators

(“

you designate one, we designate one, and those two designate a third), identify the qualifications of the arbitrators (Scientologist in good standing) and provide that arbitration is binding. Specifically, counsel for the Church explained

to the Garcias’ counsel

that the demand for arbitration needed to be sent to the IJC and that the parties to the arbitration needed to be identified. Exhibit 2, see letter dated August 17, 2015. Church counsel also provided the

Garcias with the IJC’s email address to facilitate direct

communication between the Garcias and the IJC. As anticipated, the Garcias expanded their demands to include additional parties and


3

issues, which, if included in their complaints, would have deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Exhibit 3, emails dated August 18, 2015 and August 27, 2015.

1

Plaintiffs next proposed Garth Lombard, another well-known Church critic who was not a Scientologist in good standing. In response, the IJC suggested: If you wish, I am willing to provide you with a list of qualified arbitrators in the Greater Los Angeles/Orange County area. Alternatively, if you prefer, you can send me a list of potential arbitrators and I can let you know which of them would qualify. Exhibit 4, IJC email dated August 24, 2015. One week later, the IJC once again offered to provide the Garcias with a list of qualified arbitrators, warranting that he would not communicate with them in advance. Exhibit 5, IJC email dated September 4, 2015. Rejecting the first and ignoring the second of the IJC

’s

offers of assistance, the Garcias instead proposed as potential arbitrators at least three other clients of Mr. Babbitt, all of whom have asserted Garcia-type claims against the Church (Susan Crane, Pete Pagano, and Martha Conway). The purpose of proposing such persons was simply to evoke multiple rejections by the IJC to then serve as support for this motion.

1

In their original complaint, the Garcias named as defendants, Church of Scientology Religious Trust (CSRT), IAS Administrations (IASA), and US IAS Members Trust (USIMT), and asserted claims directly against such entities based on factual allegations of acts committed by staff employees of those entities. The defendants then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction, showing that several of these entities were citizens of California. In response, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint in which they dropped CSRT, IASA, and USIMT as defendants, and then alleged that they had been mistaken as to who had committed the alleged acts giving rise to their claims; plaintiffs now asserted that all the acts in question had been committed by the remaining defendants, FSO and FSSO. The court permitted the amendment and denied the motion to dismiss. In their submissions to the IJC requesting arbitration, however, the plaintiffs reasserted their original claims against CSRT, IASA, and USIMT. Astonishingly, they also stated that the factual basis of their claims were set forth accurately in their original complaint, not the amended complaint that had shifted all their allegations to FSO and FSSO in an attempt to save their case from dismissal. And, plaintiffs also added a claim against the Church of Scientology of Orange County (California), a party that also would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
