6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 1 of 22

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

432773v1

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 2 of 22

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

C.

432773v1

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 States Interest In Adjudicating The Dispute .......................6

c.

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

d.

Interstate Judicial Systems Interest In Obtaining Efficient

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

e.

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

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

i

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 3 of 22

D.
III.

432773v1

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

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10

ii

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 4 of 22

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

iii

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 5 of 22

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

iv

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

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.

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.
1

Specifically, (a) Exh. 129 and 130 are Mr. Miscaviges counsels 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 Churchs 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. Miscaviges contact information in California ; (f) Exh. 135 is a printout 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

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 7 of 22

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.

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

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 8 of 22

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 partys]
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 plaintiffs injuries
arise out of defendants 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

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 9 of 22

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. Miscaviges 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-conspirators presence in the forum creates jurisdiction over other co-conspirators

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

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 10 of 22

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 publicconnected 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. Miscaviges 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

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

(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 States 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

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 12 of 22

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 Courts assertion of
jurisdiction over Mr. Miscavige. Plaintiffs Response does not discuss this factor.
d.

Interstate Judicial Systems 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.

The exhibits to the Request for Judicial Notice attached to the moving papers provide
further background information about the Plaintiffs.
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.
6

432773v1

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 13 of 22

e.

State Interest In Furthering Substantive Social Policies

Oklahomas 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. Miscaviges
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

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

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

25:23 (4th ed. 2014).
Mere knowledge of the primary actors 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

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 15 of 22

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. Miscaviges motion should be granted.

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.).
7

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. Keeslings publicity about the case.
8

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

CitiMortgage, Inc., 708 F.3d 1141, 1151 (10th Cir. 2013).
9

432773v1

10

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 16 of 22

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

11

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 17 of 22

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.

432773v1

Donald M. Bingham
don_bingham@riggsabney.com
Wm. Gregory James
gjames@riggsabney.com
M. David Riggs
driggs@riggsabney.com
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen
Orbison & Lewis (Tulsa)

representing

12

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)

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 18 of 22

2.

David L. Bryant
dbryant@gablelaw.com
Amelia A. Fogleman
afogleman@gablelaw.com
David E. Keglovits
dkeglovits@gablelaw.com
GableGotwals - Tulsa

representing

Religious Technology Center

(Defendant)
David Miscavige
(Defendant)

3.

John J. Carwile
jcarwile@mmmsk.com
McDonald McCann & Metcalf &
Carwile, LLP

representing

Church of Scientology
International
(Defendant)

4.

Bert H. Deixler
bdeixler@kbkfirm.com
Kendall Brill & Klieger, LLP

representing

Church of Scientology
International
(Defendant)

5.

Nathaniel T. Haskins
nhaskins@hallestill.com
Robert D. Nelon
bnelon@hallestill.com Nelon
bnelon@hallestill.com
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
richard.hix@mcafeetaft.com
Alison A. Verret
alison.verret@mcafeetaft.com
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

13

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 19 of 22

7.

432773v1

Stacie L. Hixon
slh@steidley-neal.com
Charles D. Neal, Jr.
cdn@steidley-neal.com
Rachel D. Parrilli
rdp@steidley-neal.com
Steidley & Neal (Tulsa)

representing

14

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)

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 20 of 22

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

15

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 491 Filed in ED/OK on 11/28/14 Page 21 of 22

8.

David R. Keesling
David@KLGattorneys.com
Sloane Ryan Lile
sloane@klgattorneys.com
Heidi L. Shadid
Heidi@KLGattorneys.com
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
klewis@rhodesokla.com
Denelda L. Richardson
drichardsoncourts@rhodesokla.com
Colin H. Tucker
chtucker@rhodesokla.com
John H. Tucker
jtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com
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
rem@jmbm.com
Jeffer Mangels Butler &
Mitchell, LLP

representing

Religious Technology Center

(Defendant)

11.

Todd A. Nelson
tnelson@fellerssnider.com
Ryan A. Pittman
rpittman@fellerssnider.com
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

16

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

12.

Thomas M. O'Leary
thomas.oleary@leclairryan.com
LeClairRyan, LLP

representing

Association for Better

Living and Education
International
(Defendant)
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

432773v1

17