IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JANE DOE, Case No. 2019-027633 CA 01 Plaintiff, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., a Florida Corporation; CLEARWATER ACADEMY, INC., a Florida corporation; THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California corporation; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California Corporation; and DAVID MISCAVIGE, a California resident, Defendants. _____________________________________/
DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TRANSFER FOR IMPROPER VENUE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO MOVE TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Filing # 99067713 E-Filed 11/18/2019 05:41:21 PM
Defendant
RTC’
s Motion to Dismiss Complaint
Case No. 19-27633 CA 01
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
………………………………………………………………………………...1
RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS……………………………………………………………………
3
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………...
7 I. THE COURT LACKS PERSO
NAL JURISDICTION OVER RTC………………7
A. There is no Long-Arm Jurisdiction over RTC under Fla. Stat. § 48.193
….8
B. The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over RTC Would Offend Due Proc
ess …………………………………………………………………...10
1. The is no General
Jurisdiction Over RTC………………………..11
2. There is no Specific Ju
risdiction Over RTC……………………...13
II. VENUE IS IMPROPER IN MIAMI-DADE AND MORE APPROPRIATELY LIES IN PINELLAS COUN
TY FOR ALL DEFENDANTS…………………….16
III. SHOULD THIS COURT FIND PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER RTC, PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE HER CLAIMS AND THIS MATTER SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR STAYED
……………………
20 IV. THE
COMPLAINT IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE “SHOTGUN PLEADING”
AND SHOULD BE
DISMISSED………………………………………………..
21 V. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STA
TE A CLAIM AGAINST RTC……………………23
A. Counts VII, VIII, and IX are Time-
Barred………………………………
.24 B. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Violation of Florida RICO
(Count VII)……………………………………………………………….
25 C. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Civ
il Conspiracy (Count XI)………….27
D.
Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Invasion of Privacy (Count X)………..28
E. All Claims Should be Dismissed with Prejudice as to R
TC………………30
VI. ALTERNATIVELY, RTC MOVES FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATE
MENT……………………………………………………………………30
Defendant
RTC’
s Motion to Dismiss Complaint
Case No. 19-27633 CA 01
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pages(s)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg
, 863 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2
003)……………………………………………………………28
-29
AMS Staff Leasing, Inc. v. Ocha Engineering Corp.
,
139 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)………………………………………………………21
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 556 U.S. 662 (200
9)………………………………………………………………
.
……..23
Aspsoft, Inc. v. WebClay
, 983 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2008)……………………………………………………..
22
Barrett v. City of Margate
, 743 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA
1999)………………………………………………...22
-23
Banco de los Trabajadores v. Cortez Moreno
, 237 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2018)………………………………………………..
10, 13
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
,
550 U.S. 544 (2007)………………………………………………………………
.
……..
23
Bott v. City of Marathon
,
949 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)………………………………………………………
25
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Widdick
, 717 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA
1998)………………………………………………….
18-19
Broz v. R.E. Reece
, 272 So. 3d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
……………………………………………………....30
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
, 471 U.S. 462
471 U.S. 462 (1985)…………….......………………………………………………..…..15
Burris v. Green
, No. 3:12-cv-521, 2016 WL 5844165 (N.D. Fla. Aug
. 26, 2016)………………………….
12
Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Recovery Village at Umatilla, LLC
,
248 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…………………………………………………….…
7
Carmona v. McKinley, Ittersagen, Gunderson & Berntsson, P.A.
, 952 So. 2d
1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)………………………………………………
...
…...
7