Case No. 18-13452-B
__________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA and LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees
, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION,
Defendants
-
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Div.
–
Case No. 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBM
__________________________________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF OF CROSS-APPELLANTS FSO AND FSSO IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-APPEAL __________________________________________________________________
Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
F. Wallace Pope, Jr.
/Fla. Bar No. 0124449 wallyp@jpfirm.com
Robert V. Potter
/Fla. Bar No. 0363006 bobp@jpfirm.com Post Office Box 1368 Clearwater, FL 33757 Telephone: (727) 461-1818 Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
Eric M. Lieberman, Esq.
NY Bar No. 299680 elieberman@rbskl.com 14 Wall St., Ste. 3002 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 254-1111 Counsel for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization and Church of Scientology Flag Ship Service Organization
Case: 18-13452 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 1 of 24
Case No. 18-13452-B Garcia, et al v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, et al. C-1
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
In compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1, 11th Cir. R. 26.1-2(a), and 11th Cir. R. 26.1-3, the undersigned hereby certifies that the fol-lowing persons and entities have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1.
Burlington, Philip M. 2.
Babbitt, Theodore -
Appellant’s
counsel 3.
Babbitt & Johnson, P.A. 4.
Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. - Appellee 5.
Church of Scientology of Flag Ship Service Organization, Inc. - Appellee 6.
Deixler, Bert H. -
Appellee’s
counsel 7.
Garcia, Maria Del Rocio Burgos
–
Appellant 8.
Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP 9.
Johnson, Robert E. -
Appellant’s counsel
10.
GrayRobinson, P.A. 11.
Lieberman, Eric M.
–
Appellee’s
counsel 12.
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman 13.
Pope, F. Wallace, Jr. -
Appellee’s
counsel 14.
Potter, Robert Vernon -
Appellee’s counsel
15.
Saz, Luis A. Garcia - Appellant 16.
Weil Quaranta, McGovern, P.A. 17.
Weil, Ronald -
Appellant’s
Counsel 18.
Weil, Snyder, Schweikert & Ravindran, P.A. 19.
Whittemore, James D.
–
U.S. Middle District Court Judge
Case: 18-13452 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 2 of 24
Case No. 18-13452-B Garcia, et al v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, et al. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS .......................................................................... C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i TABLE OF CITATIONS ......................................................................................... ii ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 1 I.
THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED DIVERSITY SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE AN
ARBITRATION DECISION WHERE THE OPPOSING PARTIES TO THE ARBITRATION WERE NON-DIVERSE ............... 1 II.
THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED COMPLAINTS .......................................................................................... 9 A. The Plaintiffs Were Bound By the Allegations of Their Original Complaint, and the District Court was Required to Adjudicate the Facts Relevant to Subject .......................... 9 B. The Plaintiffs Allegations of Joint Enterprise, Joint Venture or Partnership Are Binding for Purposes of Determining Subject Matter Jurisdiction ............................................ 14 C.
Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Distinguish the
Carden
line of Cases is Without Merit ....................................................................... 17 CONCLUSION TO REPLY BRIEF ON CROSS-APPEAL ................................... 18 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................... 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................... 20
Case: 18-13452 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 3 of 24