Scribd

1

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-T-27TBM CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC. Defendants. ________________________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDS

INTRODUCTION

Much of what the plaintiffs present in their account of the arbitration proceedings is inaccurate and misleading, as set forth below in the Account of Arbitration Proceedings. Even more importantly, the plaintiffs

’

attempts to entangle the court in a review of the facts and circumstances of a religious arbitration to which the plaintiffs agreed is doomed to failure. As the

court recently explained in denying plaintiffs’

prior “M

otion for Miscellaneous Relief

”

: By joining Scientology, Plaintiffs consented to its governing structures, policies, and doctrines and bound themselves to submit to its rules. Specifically, they agreed to arbitrate their dispute

“

in accordance with the arbitration procedures of Church of Scientology International

.” … [T]

he Church has advised Plaintiffs

…

that

“

[t]he conduct of the religious arbitration will be decided by the IJC at the appropriate time during the arbitration, that arbitration will be conducted in accordance with Church ecclesiastical justice procedures

,”

and that

“

[t]he arbitrators will be instructed by the [IJC] on the application of Scientology principles to arbitrate this dispute in a neutral and fair manner.

”

While Plaintiffs may disagree with the IJC

’

s determination of how arbitration will be conducted, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits this Court from resolving internal disputes concerning the interpretation or application of religious doctrine.

See, e.g.,

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 275 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID 4718

2

Watson v. Jones

, 80 U.S. (l3Wall.) 679, 727 (whenever questions of

“

ecclesiastical rule, custom or law have been decided by the highest ... church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them

”

). As the Supreme Court has instructed,

“

[c]onstitutional concepts of due process, involving secular notions of

‘

fundamental fairness

’

or impermissible objectives, are . . . hardly relevant to such matters of ecclesiastical cognizance.

”

Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich

, 426 U.S.696, 715 (1976). Order of October 16, 2017 (internal docket references omitted).

ACCOUNT OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS I. What Really Happened

1. The Garcias submitted claims for arbitration to the IJC not only against the only defendants named in their Amended Complaint, Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization

(“FSO”) and Church of Scientology Flag Ship

Service

Organization (“FSSO”), but also against the

parties they had sued in their original Complaint, but then dropped from their Amended Complaint to avoid dismissal: Church of Scientology Relig

ious Trust (“CSRT”), IAS Administrations

(“IASA”) and U.S. IAS Members’ Trust (“

USIMT

”)

. Plaintiffs emphasized to the IJC that their claims against both current and former defendants

“are

as set forth in the

original

complaint

.”

(Exhibit A, Ellis Dec.,

1

Sub-Ex. 1.) In addition, the Garcias requested arbitration of claims against a separate entity never named in and not part of the instant case, the Church of Scientology of Orange County, California.

2

(See Ex. A(1).) Since the Garcias are permitted under church law to seek arbitration of any dispute, the IJC and the arbitrators addressed the latter claims as a matter of

1

Mr. Ellis has submitted a declaration (Ex. A) authenticating several specific documents, designated as Sub-Exhibits. References to the Sub-Exhibits he

reinafter shall be as “Ex. A(_)

.

”

2

Plaintiffs made claims for (a) return of a $10,000 donation in contemplation of future religious services; (b) return of a donation of $510,000 for a building fund for the acquisition and restoration of a new church facility in Orange

County, called an “Ideal Org,” which opened on June 2, 2012. The latter claim was based on alleged false predictions that, based on similar history with other “Ideal Orgs,” the new church would

experience significant growth in the future.


3

internal Scientology justice and law, but those claims were separate and distinct from and not part of the instant case.

3

2. The arbitration commenced as scheduled and at the designated time and place on October 23, 2017. The Garcias brought with them Pauline Lombard, a vocal public critic of the Church, who was not permitted to enter the property. Mr. Garcia asked the IJC to permit Ms. Lombard to attend to help him read documents, stating that he had a vision problem.

4

(Garcia Affidavit at Doc. 272-3, p.2, l.19 - 3, l. 19.) The IJC declined but made clear that the Church would provide someone to help him read or present materials. (

Id.

at 3, ll.18-19). See also Exhibit C, internet posting of Luis Garcia. The Garcias never asked for such assistance. 3. No attorney accompanied the Garcias. The Garcias claim that their attorney was excluded. That is false. Mr. Babbitt never showed up. In

the IJC’s

earlier testimony, the court noted in its October 16, 2017 Order

5

, the Church parties made clear that Mr. Babbitt was free to attend and could consult with his client, but that, according to Church ecclesiastical procedures, he would not be able to perform functions at the arbitration itself. Had he attended, Mr. Babbitt could have advised his client, helped him review evidence, or communicated with him privately in whatever manner desired.

3

It is significant that the Garcias stated that their claims are based on their original complaint, which named as defendants several organizations which destroyed diversity jurisdiction. Likewise, any claim against the Church of Scientology of Orange County destroys jurisdiction. By doing so, the Garcias effectively conceded that the amended complaint was filed solely to avoid dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is based on pretextual allegations. Indeed, the court may consider again whether to dismiss the entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

4

We note that in his affidavit in support of the instant motion, Mr. Garcia states that “I could not understand how the

arbitr

ators could take so long in reading, or ‘studying’ as Mr. Ellis said, just 28 pages of policies. I read them all in about 20 minutes.” Garcia Affidavit at 6, ll. 18

-20. See also para 4,

post

at 4, showing that the arbitrators had far more to read and incorporate than merely reading the policies.

5

“For example, Ellis has testified that an attorney may be present, but may not ‘represent’ the plaintiffs (Ellis Dep.

at 15:24-

16:9).” Dkt. 265 at 3, n.4.
