NAFC v. Scientology: David Miscavige reply in motion to dismiss

432773v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC

COUNSELORS, INC., a Nevada Non-Profit

Corporation; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, a California

Non-Profit Corporation; et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 6:14-cv-00187-RAW

REPLY OF DEFENDANT

DAVID MISCAVIGE TO HIS MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OR, ALTERNATIVELY,

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

Jeffrey K. Riffer, Cal. Bar No. 87016

Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben

Gartside LLP

2049 Century Park East, 27th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310) 746-4406

[Admitted Pro Hac Vice]

David L. Bryant, OBA No. 1262

David E. Keglovits, OBA No. 14259

Amelia A. Fogleman, OBA No. 16221

GABLEGOTWALS

1100 ONEOK Plaza

100 West Fifth Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4217

(918) 595-4800

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

DAVID MISCAVIGE

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 of 22

432773v1 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................2

A. PLAINTIFFS’ INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE IS IMPROPER ................2

B. THERE IS NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER MR. MISCAVIGE ............3

1. Basic Principles of Personal Jurisdiction .....................................................3

2. There is No General Jurisdiction .................................................................3

3. There is No Specific Jurisdiction .................................................................3

4. The Exercise of Jurisdiction Over Mr. Miscavige Would Be

Unreasonable, Unfair, and in Violation of Due Process ..............................6

a. Burden On The Defendant Of Litigating In The Forum ..................6

b. Forum State’s Interest In Adjudicating The Dispute .......................6

c. Plaintiffs’ Interest In Convenient And Effective Relief ..................7

d. Interstate Judicial System’s Interest In Obtaining Efficient

Resolution ........................................................................................7

e. State Interest In Furthering Substantive Social Policies ..................8

C. ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM .........................8

1. Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Mr. Miscavige ...................................................8

2. There is No Secondary Liability under Trademark Law .............................8

a. There is No Vicarious Liability .......................................................8

b. There is No Contributory Liability ..................................................8

c. There is No “Conspiracy Liability” under Trademark Law ............8

d. Plaintiffs Have Not Adequately Alleged Civil Conspiracy .............9

i. Conspiracy Requires Damages ............................................9

ii. Plaintiffs Failed to Plead Any Facts ....................................9


432773v1 ii

D. THERE SHOULD BE NO LEAVE TO AMEND ................................................10

III. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10


432773v1 iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.,

722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................5

In re Antrobus,

563 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................3

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................9

Banks v. Am. Baptist Churches,

2014 WL 3037603 (E.D. Okla. July 3, 2014) ..........................................................................10

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................10

Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc.,

708 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................10

Brock v. Thompson,

948 P.2d 279 (Okla. 1997) .........................................................................................................8

Calder v. Jones,

465 U.S. 783 (1984) ...............................................................................................................5, 6

Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermillion Fine Arts, Inc.,

514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................3, 5

Floyd's 99 Holdings, LLC v. Jude's Barbershop, Inc.,

898 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Colo. 2012) .......................................................................................6

Hostetler v. Drewery,

2008 WL 474385 (E.D. Okla. Feb. 19, 2008), aff'd in part, 323 F. App'x 653

(10th Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................................................................3

Inwood Labs, Inc. v. Ives Labs, Inc.,

456 U.S. 844 (1982) ...................................................................................................................5

Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA,

511 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................4

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,

243 F.Supp.2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .......................................................................................6


432773v1 iv

Northland Ins. Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co.,

327 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................3

Piccoli A/S v. Calvin Klein Jeanswear Co.,

19 F. Supp. 2d 157 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)..........................................................................................9

Shrader v. Biddinger,

633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................4

TK-7 Corp. v. Estate of Barbouti,

993 F.2d 722 (10th Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................9

Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation,

527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................5

Walden v. Fiore,

134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) ...............................................................................................................5

Statutes and Other Authorities

4 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 25:23 (4th ed. 2014) .................................9

Fed. R. Evid. 602 .............................................................................................................................2

Fed. R. Evid. 802 .............................................................................................................................2

Local Rule 7.1(d) .............................................................................................................................3


432773v1 1

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are two Nevada entities. Their principal place of business is in

Indiana. They are not registered to do business in Oklahoma.

No Personal Jurisdiction. Mr. Miscavige is the Chairman of the Board of

Religious Technology Center. He is a resident of California. He has no meaningful

contacts with Oklahoma. He owns no property here; rents no property here; has no

assets here; has no home here; has no office here; has no telephone listing here;

pays no taxes here; has no bank account here; and is not registered to vote here.

Plaintiffs offer no admissible evidence1 (and also no appropriate argument) to

the contrary.2 There is no personal jurisdiction.

1 Plaintiffs’ 19 exhibits to their Response are inadmissible as unauthenticated hearsay

(except for a one paragraph Declaration that does not mention Mr. Miscavige) and irrelevant.

Specifically, (a) Exh. 129 and 130 are Mr. Miscavige’s counsel’s unauthenticated letters

to other parties in other disputes (having nothing to do with personal jurisdiction or trademark

infringement); (b) Exh. 131 consists of some magazine articles having nothing to do with

personal jurisdiction or trademark infringement; (c) Exh. 132 is an undated website stating that

Mr. Miscavige has “overseen” his Church’s sponsorship of certain “international headquarters”

for humanitarian programs, including one in Oklahoma (which is irrelevant to infringement of

Plaintiffs’ trademarks); (d) Exh. 133 is an October 2000 letter from Mr. Miscavige regarding an

Oklahoma site (irrelevant to infringement of Plaintiffs’ trademarks); (e) Exh. 134 is a print-out of

a third party showing Mr. Miscavige’s contact information in California ; (f) Exh. 135 is a print-

out of a purported 1993 agreement with the IRS that has nothing to do with personal jurisdiction

or infringement of Plaintiffs’ trademarks; (g) Exh. 136 is a print-out from an undisclosed party

on an undisclosed date stating that there is a Narconon facility in Oklahoma in 2009 (but that has

nothing to do with personal jurisdiction or trademark infringement); (h) Exh. 137 is an affidavit

of Karla Traylor stating that she has only been president of Plaintiffs since 2008 which provides

no basis for her to testify to matters before that time – including the beginning of the alleged

conspiracy in 2006 and nothing to do with Mr. Miscavige; (i) Exh. 138 is an unauthenticated and

undated print-out of a document allegedly retracting negative statements made about NAFC

(irrelevant); (j) Exh. 139 is an unauthenticated print-out from a website having nothing to do

with Mr. Miscavige; (k) Exh. 140 is an unauthenticated print-out from a website showing

certifications that NAFC offers, one of which (“Master Addictions Counselor” or MAC) is

offered by another organization and two of which are not at issue in this case; (l) Exh. 141 is an

unauthenticated print-out from an undisclosed party on an undisclosed date listing NAFC


432773v1 2

Failure to State a Claim. Mr. Miscavige never misused any of Plaintiffs’

alleged trademarks (and had no reason to do so). Plaintiffs’ 44-page Complaint

alleges no facts to the contrary; it alleges only conclusory allegations that Mr.

Miscavige was part of some “scheme” and such allegations fail to state a claim.

II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. PLAINTIFFS’ INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE IS IMPROPER

Plaintiffs’ Response “incorporate[s] by reference their Responses to the

[thirty] Motions to Dismiss filed by … other[s]...” See Response at p.2; Dkt Nos.

246, 261, 326-341, 354, 429, 437, 447, 450, 452, 457, 458, 480, 482, 486 and 487.

Plaintiffs’ thirty Responses totaled 503 pages and an additional 132 exhibits.3

Plaintiffs’ incorporation of those pages into their Response (which itself was 23

certifications; (m) Exh. 142 consists of unauthenticated newspaper articles relating to

certifications, but the certifications do not relate to this case or Mr. Miscavige; (n) Exh. 143 is an

unauthenticated print-out of a web page about becoming a forensic therapist, but having nothing

to do with this case or Mr. Miscavige; (o) Exh. 144 is an unauthenticated print-out purporting to

show that NAFC members spoke at a workshop, but the workshop has nothing to do with this

case or Mr. Miscavige; (p) Exh. 145 is a lawsuit filed against Plaintiffs for fraud; and (q) Exh.

146 and 147 are unauthenticated documents purporting to show that Mac McGregor is licensed,

but that has nothing to do with Mr. Miscavige.

2 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 134 shows Mr. Miscavige residing in California.

3 Exhibit 1 is an affidavit of Karla Traylor (President of Plaintiffs); she became President

in 2008, but she purports to testify on prior events, in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 602 (requires

personal knowledge). She purports to authenticate Exhibits 5-26, but those documents

supposedly detail the inner workings of Scientology, and there is no foundation for her testimony

and the documents are hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 802.

Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 are irrelevant affidavits (two of them were filed in Texas state court).

The three affidavits never mention Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ trademarks or any “conspiracy.”

Exhibits 3 and 4 never mention any contact between Mr. Miscavige and Oklahoma. Exhibit 2

mentions Narconon (which operates world-wide), but never mentions any contact between Mr.

Miscavige and Oklahoma regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. The affidavit is also conclusory, lacks

foundation and contains hearsay.


432773v1 3

pages) to this motion evades the 25 page limit on Responses, see Local Rule 7.1(d).

See, e.g., In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) (“adopting [a party’s]

previous filings … circumvent[s] the page limitations on briefs”); Northland Ins. Co.

v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 327 F.3d 448, 452 (6th Cir. 2003) (incorporation forces

Court “to skip over repetitive material, to … disregard any arguments that are now

irrelevant, and to harmonize the arguments in [multiple] documents.”).

B. THERE IS NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER MR. MISCAVIGE

1. Basic Principles of Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over each

defendant. See Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermillion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063,

1069 (10th Cir. 2008). They did not meet their burden.

2. There is No General Jurisdiction

There is no general jurisdiction. Plaintiffs do not argue to the contrary,

thereby conceding this issue. Hostetler v. Drewery, 2008 WL 474385, at *6 (E.D.

Okla. Feb. 19, 2008), aff'd in part, 323 F. App'x 653 (10th Cir. 2009).

3. There is No Specific Jurisdiction

A court may exercise specific jurisdiction if the defendant has “‘purposefully

directed’ its activities at residents of the forum state” and the plaintiff’s injuries

“‘arise out of’ defendant’s forum-related activities.” Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1071.

In substance, the affidavits allege only that Mr. Miscavige was a “micro-manager” in

general, but one of the affiants (Rathbun) was expelled from the Church in 2004 and the other

(Rinder) was expelled in 2007; so they have no relevant firsthand knowledge. In any event,

“micro-managing,” even if true, which it is not, is not a basis for personal jurisdiction.

It is impossible to tell how Plaintiffs use Exhibits 27-128 and 148-151 against Mr.

Miscavige.


432773v1 4

No Purposeful Direction At Forum. Mr. Miscavige has not directed any

activities at Oklahoma residents. Plaintiffs are Nevada entities whose principal

place of business is in Indiana. They are not registered to do business in

Oklahoma. They suffered no injuries, and certainly not in Oklahoma. But, even if

they had, such injuries did not arise out of Mr. Miscavige’s “forum-related”

activities, of which there are none.

Plaintiffs’ “Conspiracy” Allegation Should Be Disregarded. Plaintiffs’

Complaint alleges – with no supporting facts – that “personal jurisdiction exists

over all Defendants due to Defendants’ participation in a civil conspiracy with its

[sic] co-Defendants located in this forum.” See Complaint ¶ 86.4

Conclusory allegations are disregarded. A plaintiff “‘must offer more than

‘bare allegations’ that a conspiracy existed, and must allege facts that would

support a prima facie showing of a conspiracy.’” Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d

1235, 1242 (10th Cir. 2011). There are no such facts.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments Are Incorrect. (a) Plaintiffs argue there is personal

jurisdiction because some co-conspirators are in Oklahoma – but the case they cite

provides no support. See Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA, 511 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (10th Cir.

2007) (“In order for personal jurisdiction based on a conspiracy to exist, the plaintiff

must offer more than ‘bare allegations’ that a conspiracy existed”; “to hold that one

co-conspirator’s presence in the forum creates jurisdiction over other co-conspirators

4 The Church of Scientology and Mr. Miscavige have long supported the Narconon

program which is dedicated to getting individuals off drugs. They have never condoned

trademark infringement; and there are no facts to the contrary.


432773v1 5

threatens to confuse the standards applicable to personal jurisdiction and those

applicable to liability.”; held, no personal jurisdiction).

(b) Plaintiffs argue that there is personal jurisdiction when there is

contributory trademark infringement -- but their cases never mention personal

jurisdiction. See Inwood Labs, Inc. v. Ives Labs, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 853-54 (1982);

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229, 1249 (10th Cir. 2013); Utah

Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation, 527 F.3d 1045, 1050 (10th Cir. 2009).

(c) Plaintiffs argue there is jurisdiction where the “effects” of the wrongful

acts occur in the forum, citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 (1984) -- but

Plaintiffs miscite Calder:

(i) The Supreme Court recently limited Calder because that case

involved defamation, which has special requirements. “[P]ublication to third

persons is a necessary element of libel, … [T]he ‘effects’ caused by the defendants'

article — i.e., the injury to the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of the

California public—connected the defendants' conduct to California, not just to a

plaintiff who lived there.” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1123-24 (2014).

Nothing connects Mr. Miscavige’s conduct to “effects” in Oklahoma.

(ii) The Tenth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs’ view of Calder; the defendant

must have “aimed” at the forum. See Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1077 (“[U]nder the

Calder test[,] plaintiffs … must establish … not only that defendants foresaw (or

knew) that the effects of their conduct would be felt in the forum…, but also that

defendants undertook intentional actions that were expressly aimed [there].”).


432773v1 6

(iii) Plaintiffs’ own cases do not support Plaintiffs. See Metro-

Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 243 F.Supp.2d 1073, 1089 (C.D. Cal.

2003) (Calder “effects test is not satisfied simply by showing that the tortious act

was intentional. Rather, the intentional conduct ‘must be targeted at a plaintiff

whom the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state.’”) (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs are not residents of Oklahoma.

(iv) Where, as here, “Plaintiff has not met its burden to support its

Complaint with ‘competent proof of the supporting [jurisdictional] facts,’ … because

Plaintiff does not include any well-pled facts that Defendants' actions … [were]

‘expressly aimed’ at [the forum],” there is no jurisdiction. Floyd's 99 Holdings, LLC

v. Jude's Barbershop, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1208 (D. Colo. 2012).

4. The Exercise of Jurisdiction Over Mr. Miscavige Would Be

Unreasonable, Unfair, and in Violation of Due Process

a. Burden On The Defendant Of Litigating In The Forum

The burden on Mr. Miscavige of litigating in Oklahoma is significant because

he (a) is a California resident; (b) is the ecclesiastical leader of a world-wide

religion; and (c) has no meaningful contacts with Oklahoma. Accordingly, this

factor -- which is the most important of the five factors -- weighs in favor of Mr.

Miscavige. Plaintiffs’ Response does not discuss this factor, thereby conceding it.

b. Forum State’s Interest In Adjudicating The Dispute

Oklahoma has no greater interest in adjudicating this dispute than other

jurisdictions because: (a) Plaintiffs are Nevada corporations; (b) their principal

place of business is in Indiana: (c) they are not registered to do business in


432773v1 7

Oklahoma5; (d) they brought claims against 82 Defendants – only 13 of which live in

Oklahoma; and (e) their claims are based on alleged conduct that was not centered

here. Plaintiffs’ Response does not discuss this factor.6

c. Plaintiffs’ Interest In Convenient And Effective Relief

There is no peculiarity of Oklahoma law that greatly enhances Plaintiffs’

chances of recovery here because (a) Plaintiffs are Nevada corporations; (b) their

principal place of business is in Indiana; and (c) they are not registered to do

business in Oklahoma. Thus, this factor does not support this Court’s assertion of

jurisdiction over Mr. Miscavige. Plaintiffs’ Response does not discuss this factor.

d. Interstate Judicial System’s Interest In Obtaining

Efficient Resolution

Oklahoma is not the “most efficient” forum because: (a) Plaintiffs are Nevada

corporations; (b) their principal place of business is in Indiana; (c) they are not

registered to do business in Oklahoma; (d) only 13 of the 82 Defendants live in

Oklahoma; (e) the alleged wrongs mostly did not occur here; and (f) Plaintiffs’

claims are based on federal statutes or common law, not Oklahoma law. Plaintiffs’

Response does not discuss this factor.

5 The exhibits to the Request for Judicial Notice attached to the moving papers provide

further background information about the Plaintiffs.

6 Plaintiffs assert, in a different Response, that “a majority of the material witnesses are

located in Oklahoma.” See, e.g., Docket No. 457 at pp. 11-12. However, the overwhelming

majority (68 out of 82, which is about 83%) of Defendants are not Oklahoma residents, so

Plaintiffs’ assertion, which was not supported by any facts, is obviously incorrect.


432773v1 8

e. State Interest In Furthering Substantive Social Policies

Oklahoma’s exercise of jurisdiction over Mr. Miscavige would improperly

affect the substantive social policies of California, as explained in the moving

papers. Dkt. No. 454. Plaintiffs’ Response does not discuss this factor.

C. ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM

1. Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Mr. Miscavige

Mr. Miscavige is absent from the list of Defendants with allegedly infringing

websites and publications. See Complaint ¶¶ 116-242, and ¶ 250.

Plaintiffs’ sole factual allegation against Mr. Miscavige was that he gave a

2002 speech, in Florida, to Scientologists. The speech was given four years before

Plaintiffs allege the conspiracy started (2006) and is irrelevant. See Mr. Miscavige’s

moving papers. Dkt. No. 454. Plaintiffs’ Response, by its silence, concedes this.

2. There is No Secondary Liability under Trademark Law

a. There is No Vicarious Liability

Plaintiffs never alleged that Mr. Miscavige employed any of the Defendants

who supposedly directly infringed Plaintiffs’ marks or that those Defendants acted

on his personal behalf with his consent. So, he has no vicarious liability.

b. There is No Contributory Liability

Plaintiffs never alleged that Mr. Miscavige intentionally caused, or

knowingly facilitated, infringement by others. So, he has no contributory liability.

c. There is No “Conspiracy Liability” under Trademark Law

There is no separate tort liability of “conspiracy.” Brock v. Thompson, 948

P.2d 279, 294 (Okla. 1997), as corrected (Apr. 3, 1998). “‘[C]onspirators’ are, in civil


432773v1 9

law, called ‘joint tortfeasors.’” 4 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition

§ 25:23 (4th ed. 2014).

“Mere knowledge of the primary actor’s wrongful conduct is insufficient to

establish that a defendant is a joint tortfeasor. [T]here must be a finding that the

defendant and the direct infringer have an apparent or actual partnership, have

authority to bind one another in transactions with third parties or exercise joint

ownership or control over the infringing product.” Piccoli A/S v. Calvin Klein

Jeanswear Co., 19 F. Supp. 2d 157, 173-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

Plaintiffs never alleged that Mr. Miscavige had “an apparent or actual

partnership [with infringing defendants], ha[d] authority to bind one another in

transactions with third parties or exercise[d] joint ownership or control over the

infringing product.” As such, there is no conspiracy liability.

d. Plaintiffs Have Not Adequately Alleged Civil Conspiracy

i. Conspiracy Requires Damages

“An essential element of a claim of civil conspiracy is a showing that the

plaintiff suffered actual damages as a result of the conspiracy.” See TK-7 Corp. v.

Estate of Barbouti, 993 F.2d 722, 725 (10th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts showing “actual damages” (conclusory

allegations are disregarded, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009)). So,

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to allege a conspiracy.

ii. Plaintiffs Failed to Plead Any Facts

“In a case against multiple defendants, it is particularly important ... that the

complaint make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom...


432773v1 10

Otherwise, the Complaint would fail … to present a plausible right to relief.” Banks

v. Am. Baptist Churches, 2014 WL 3037603 at *2 (E.D. Okla. July 3, 2014).

Plaintiffs’ allegations against Mr. Miscavige are insufficient under this standard.

Plaintiffs’ “scheme” is also not plausible for another reason. Plaintiffs allege,

without any facts, a “scheme”: (a) taking place over 8 years, see Complaint ¶ 212; (b)

in three countries (on two continents) and in 14 states, see id. ¶ ¶ 5, 8, 11, 13, 14,

16, 17, 20, 22, 21, 33, 43, 52, 53, 59, 68; (c) involving 82 defendants, see id. ¶¶ 3-84;

(d) who supposedly misused Plaintiffs' trademarks in different ways, see id. ¶¶ 125,

126, 127, 148. Such an implausible scheme fails to state a claim.7

D. THERE SHOULD BE NO LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiffs’ 44 page Complaint made no substantive allegations against Mr.

Miscavige. Plaintiffs’ Response incorporated thirty other Responses regarding other

Defendants, which total 503 pages, and attach another 132 exhibits. They still have

no plausible claim against Mr. Miscavige.8 Amendment is futile. See Banks, 2014

WL 3037603 at *3 (E.D. Okla. July 3, 2014).9

III. CONCLUSION

Mr. Miscavige’s motion should be granted.

7 At best, Plaintiffs’ conspiracy allegations amount to independent conduct, by different

actors – other than Mr. Miscavige – at different times, in different states and different countries.

This “parallel” conduct is not enough to state a plausible conspiracy. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007) (“parallel conduct did not suggest conspiracy.”).

8 Plaintiffs’ lead attorney (David Keesling)’s July 24, 2014 Facebook page has a picture

of Mr. Miscavige, the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion, (but no other defendant),

and a link to Mr. Keesling’s publicity about the case.

9 Informal requests to amend, such as Plaintiffs’, are improper. See Berneike v.

CitiMortgage, Inc., 708 F.3d 1141, 1151 (10th Cir. 2013).


432773v1 11

DATED: November 28, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeffrey K. Riffer

Jeffrey K. Riffer, Cal. Bar No. 87016

Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben

Gartside LLP

2049 Century Park East, 27th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310) 746-4406

[Admitted Pro Hac Vice]

David L. Bryant, OBA No. 1262

David E. Keglovits, OBA No. 14259

Amelia A. Fogleman, OBA No. 16221

GABLEGOTWALS

1100 ONEOK Plaza

100 West Fifth Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4217

(918) 595-4800

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

DAVID MISCAVIGE


432773v1 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 28th day of November, 2014, I electronically transmitted

the attached document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants:

1. Donald M. Bingham [email protected]

Wm. Gregory James [email protected]

M. David Riggs [email protected]

Riggs Abney Neal Turpen

Orbison & Lewis (Tulsa)

representing Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. (Counter Claimant)

Narconon of Oklahoma, Inc. (Defendant)

Dena G. Goad (Defendant)

Derry Hallmark (Defendant)

Janet Watkins (Defendant)

Kathy Gosselin (Defendant)

Kent McGregor (Counter Claimant)

Kent McGregor (Defendant)

Michael George (Defendant)

Michael J. Gosselin (Defendant)

Michael Otto (Defendant)

Michael St. Amand (Defendant)

Tom Widman (Defendant)

Vicki Smith (Defendant)

Gary W. Smith (Defendant)

Pita Group, Inc. (Defendant)


432773v1 13

2. David L. Bryant [email protected]

Amelia A. Fogleman

[email protected]

David E. Keglovits [email protected]

GableGotwals - Tulsa

representing Religious Technology Center (Defendant)

David Miscavige (Defendant)

3. John J. Carwile [email protected]

McDonald McCann & Metcalf &

Carwile, LLP

representing Church of Scientology

International (Defendant)

4. Bert H. Deixler [email protected]

Kendall Brill & Klieger, LLP

representing Church of Scientology


5.

Nathaniel T. Haskins [email protected]

Robert D. Nelon [email protected] Nelon

[email protected]

Hall Estill Hardwick Gable

Golden & Nelson (OKC)

representing Narconon Freedom Center,

Inc. (Defendant)

Nicholas Thiel (Defendant)

Narconon Fresh Start, Inc. (Defendant)

6.

Richard P. Hix [email protected]

Alison A. Verret [email protected]

McAfee & Taft (Tulsa)

representing David S. Lee, III (Defendant)

Philip R. Kelly, II (Defendant)

Intervention Services and

Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

Kevin Lee (Defendant)

Sharon Kubacki (Defendant)


432773v1 14

7.

Stacie L. Hixon [email protected]

Charles D. Neal, Jr. [email protected]

Rachel D. Parrilli [email protected]

Steidley & Neal (Tulsa)

representing A Life Worth Living, Inc. (Defendant)

Thomas Garcia (Defendant)

Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc. (Defendant)

Friends of Narconon Intl. (Defendant)

Anthony Bylsma (Defendant)

Glen Petcavage (Defendant)

Joseph Guernaccini (Defendant)

Golden Millennium

Productions, Inc. (Defendant)

David S. Lee, III (Defendant)

Richard Hawk (Defendant)

GreatCircle Studios, LLC (Defendant)

Narconon Eastern United

States, Inc. (Defendant)

Narconon South Texas, Inc. (Defendant)

James Woodworth (Defendant)

Narconon Freedom Center,

Inc. (Defendant)

Narconon Spring Hill, Inc. (Defendant)

Jonathan Beazley (Defendant)

International Academy of

Detoxification Specialists (Defendant)


432773v1 15

Premazon, Inc. (Defendant)

Royalmark Management, Inc. (Defendant)

Jonathan Moretti (Defendant)

Luria K. Dion (Defendant)

Carl Smith (Defendant)

Daphna Hernandez (Defendant)

Mary Rieser (Defendant)

Michael DiPalma (Defendant)

Nicholas Thiel (Defendant)

Robert J. Hernandez (Defendant)

Narconon of Georgia, Inc. (Defendant)

Rebecca Pool (Defendant)

The Virtual Workforce Co.,

Ltd. (Defendant)

Desiree Cardoso (Defendant)

James McLaughlin (Defendant)

Shana Austin (Defendant)

Narconon London (Defendant)


432773v1 16

8. David R. Keesling [email protected]

Sloane Ryan Lile [email protected]

Heidi L. Shadid [email protected]

Keesling Law Group, PLLC

representing American Academy of

Certified Forensic Counselors,

Inc. (Counter Defendant)

American Academy of

Certified Forensic Counselors,

Inc. (Plaintiff)

National Association of

Forensic Counselors, Inc. (Counter Defendant)

National Association of

Forensic Counselors, Inc. (Plaintiff)

9. Kerry R. Lewis [email protected]

Denelda L. Richardson [email protected]

Colin H. Tucker [email protected]

John H. Tucker [email protected]

Rhodes Hieronymus Jones

Tucker & Gable

representing Association for Better Living

and Education International (Defendant)

Narconon International (Defendant)

Clark Carr (Defendant)

Robert Wiggins (Defendant)

10. Robert E. Mangels [email protected]

Jeffer Mangels Butler &

Mitchell, LLP

representing Religious Technology Center (Defendant)

11. Todd A. Nelson [email protected]

Ryan A. Pittman

[email protected]

Fellers Snider Blankenship

Bailey & Tippens (Tul)

representing Jonathan Beazley (Defendant)

Joseph Guernaccini (Defendant)

Michael DiPalma (Defendant)

Narconon of Northern

California (Defendant)

Nicholas Bailey (Defendant)


432773v1 17

12. Thomas M. O'Leary thomas.o’[email protected]

LeClairRyan, LLP

representing Association for Better

Living and Education


Narconon International (Defendant)

Clark Carr (Defendant)

Robert Wiggins (Defendant)

I certify that on the 28th day of November, 2014, I served the attached

document on the following party by first class mail:

D. Eric Mitchell, pro se

2133 Indian Trails

Jonesboro, AR 72401

/s/ Jeffrey K. Riffer


NAFC v. Scientology: David Miscavige reply in motion to dismiss

Documents

Transcript of NAFC v. Scientology: David Miscavige reply in motion to dismiss