Judgment
Order (Doc. 135) granting the motions to dismiss, Children of ISKCON et al. v. ISKCON et al., No. 3:00-CV-1254-L (N.D. Tex.), 28 September 2001
US District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Judge Sam A. Lindsay)
The court's ruling on the motions to dismiss; page 14 lists the defendants never served. Two boxes on page 12 cover the name of a defendant's relative who gave a declaration about service.
Order (Doc. 135) granting the motions to dismiss, Children of ISKCON et al. v. ISKCON et al., No. 3:00-CV-1254-L (N.D. Tex.), 28 September 2001
Loading document…
Arrow keys change page, + and − zoom, 0 resets.
Details
Files
1Each file is stored under its SHA-256 hash. To verify a download, run sha256sum on it and compare.
SHA-256
21afce96f3a46d08e9a1d6473b829523c35ef733855089ba63cdacbbfb89966c
Extracted text
Text extracted automatically from the file for search. The file itself is the record; check it before quoting.
Show extracted text
s
RG Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page fstBis
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS
IGIN AL FILED
ORIN: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SEP 2 8 200!
DALLAS DIVISION
CHILDREN OF ISKCON, et al., § CERI US.DISTRIZT COURT
§ Deputy
Plaintiffs, § SAE,
Vv. § Civil Action No. 3:00-CV-1
§
ISKCON, a d/b/a of §
THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR §
KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER
Before the court are the following motions:
1. Defendant ISKCON Foundation, Inc.’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Facts, filed
September 1, 2000;
2. Defendant ISKCON Foundation, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint, filed December 8, 2000;
3. Defendant Faramarz Attar’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims, filed December 11,
2000;
4. ISKCON Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Failure to State a Claim
Upon Which Relief Can be Granted Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule
12(b)(1), (2) and (6), filed December 11, 2000';
5. Defendant ISKCON of West Virginia, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint, filed December 11, 2000;
'This motion was filed by Defendants International Society for Krishna Consciousness, William
Deadwyler, III, ISKCON of California, ISKCON of San Diego, ISKCON of Port Royal, ISKCON of Los
Angeles, ISKCON of Southern California, and International Society for Krishna Consciousness of
Washington. Unless otherwise stated, the court will refer to these Defendants collectively as the “ISKCON
Defendants.” On January 23, 2001, Defendant ISKCON Television, Inc. filed a Notice of Joinder, declaring
its joinder in the ISKCON Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, all references to the ISKCON
Defendants also includes Defendant ISKCON Television, Inc.
Order - Page 1
\"
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page 2of15 PagelD 194
6. Defendant William Ogle’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Failure to State a Claim
Upon Which Relief Can be Granted Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule
12(b)(1), (2) and (6), filed December 11, 2000;
7. Defendants Texas Krishnas, Inc. and Thomas Herzig’s Second Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and For Failure to State a Claim, filed December
11, 2000;
8. Defendants New Vrindaban Community, Inc., NRS, Inc., and Jaga, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, filed December 21, 2000;
9. Defendant Howard Resnick’s First Amended 12(b)(5) Motion to Dismiss, filed January
29, 2001;
10. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Howard Resnick, filed February 2,
2001; and
11. Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae, filed June 14, 2001.’
After careful consideration of the motions, responses, replies, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Complaint, and the applicable authority, the court, for the reasons stated herein, grants Defendants’
respective motions to dismiss; denies Defendant Howard Resnick’s First Amended 12(b)(5) Motion
to Dismiss; grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Howard Resnick; denies as
moot Defendant ISKCON Foundation, Inc.’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Facts; and denies
as moot the Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae.
2Amici curiae are various religious communities or legal entities representing the interests of their
respective ecclesiastical faiths, who urge the court to grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Specifically,
amici curiae are American Jewish Congress; Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; Christian Legal
Society; Christian Life Commission of the Baptist General Convention of Texas; the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints; the Evangelical Covenant Church; the First Church of Christ, Scientist; General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Clifton Kirkpatrick as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States; and United States
Catholic Conference.
Order - Page 2
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page 3of15 PagelD 195
IL. Factual and Procedural Background
This is a personal injury lawsuit brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and Texas tort law. Plaintiffs comprise a
group of 94 individuals who were, at the time of the incidents giving rise to their purported claims,
minors attending Hare Krishna boarding schools in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Washington, West Virginia and India. Defendants are the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness (“ISKCON”), several ISKCON-related entities, the estate of the founder ofISKCON,
and various individual members of ISKCON’s Governing Body of Commissioners.* According to
Plaintiffs, the facts of this case are as follows:
ISKCON, also known as “Hare Krishna” or “the Hare Krishnas,” is a religious association
that follows the teachings of Krishna Consciousness, a religious movement founded in the United
States in the mid-1960s by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Devotees of Krishna
Consciousness are encouraged to surrender their material possessions and devote their lives to the
service of their spiritual leader. This often includes the solicitation of contributions in airports,
public displays of chanting and street performances, and the sale or distribution ofreligious literature
and paraphernalia. In addition, devotees are encouraged to place their children in ISKCON-founded
Several of the individuals and entities identified as Defendants in this case have not yet been served
with process. The court will address this matter later. This order addresses those Defendants who have
appeared in this case. Specifically, those Defendants are the ISKCON Defendants; ISKCON Foundation,
Inc.; ISKCON of West Virginia; Thomas Herzig (identified in Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Thomas Hertzog),
Individually and as Executor of the Estate of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada; Howard Resnick,
Individually, and as Executor of the Estate of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada; Faramarz
Attar; William Ogle; Jaga, Inc.; NRS, Inc.; and New Vrindaban Community, Inc. Unless otherwise stated,
the court refers to these individuals and entities collectively as “Defendants.”
Order - Page 3
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page 4of15 PagelD 196
and sponsored boarding schools, known as “gurukulas,” for the purpose of indoctrinating them into
the disciplines of Krishna Consciousness.
Plaintiffs allege that they all attended ISKCON boarding schools as children, and that
between 1972 and 1990, they were subjected to neglect and various forms of abuse, including sexual,
physical, mental and emotional. Plaintiffs further allege that they were forced to work many hours
a day, at ages below the minimum required by the child labor laws of the various states in which the
boarding schools are located. In this regard, Plaintiffs allege that they were forced to perform such
tasks as preparing and cooking meals; washing dishes and clothes; cleaning the facilities; and, in
some instances, operating the farms, without compensation. Plaintiffs also allege that they received
little or no education at these boarding schools, except that they were taught to read the “Vedic
scriptures” in connection with their faith. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants conspired to
suppress any public disclosure of the widespread practice of abuse at its boarding schools, and that
ISKCON fraudulently concealed this information for decades.
On June 12, 2000, Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit, alleging claims against Defendants for
violations of RICO, § 1962 (a), (c) and (d), and state law claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, constructive fraud, breach of contract/breach of warranty, breach of statutory duty, gross
negligence, conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, and intentional and negligent infliction ofemotional
distress. Defendants initially filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original complaint in September
2000; however, those motions were rendered moot by the filing of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint on October 25, 2000. Thereafter, Defendants filed the pending motions to dismiss. On
July 25, 2001, Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint a second time to add additional
Order - Page 4
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page5of15 PagelD 197
Plaintiffs. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
(2) and (6) and 9(b), and Defendant Resnick under Rule 12(b)(5).
II. Legal Standard: Motion to Dismiss - 12(b)(6) Failure to State a Claim
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1),
contending that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their civil RICO claims because they have failed
to allege facts which show that they were injured in their business or property or that their alleged
injuries were caused by a RICO violation. Defendants’ standing argument is more appropriately
characterized as attesting the adequacy of the factual allegations of Plaintiff's RICO claims.
Accordingly, it should be analyzed under the standards applicable to Rule 12(b)(6).°
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) “is viewed with
disfavor and is rarely granted.” Lowrey v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5" Cir. 1997).
A district court cannot dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46
(1957); Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5 Cir. 1995). In reviewing a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them
‘The factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint are the same as those contained
in their First Amended Complaint. The parties have agreed that the pending motions to dismiss, and all
documents related thereto, may be applied to the latest complaint. The court will therefore apply Defendants’
motions to dismiss to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (‘“‘Plaintiffs’ Complaint”).
°To characterize the issue as one of standing causes confusion because standing goes to whether the
court’s jurisdictional power is invoked. If the court has no subject matter jurisdiction, it is to dismiss the
case. Accordingly, it is illogical to assert that Plaintiffs have no standing and therefore the court has no
jurisdiction, on the one hand, and then request that the court proceed to determine Defendants’ 12(b)(6)
motions to dismiss. The court therefore determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, and
will determine Defendants’ motions to dismiss under the legal standard applicable to Rule 12(b)(6).
Order - Page 5
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page6of15 PagelD 198
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5" Cir. 1996). In
ruling on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the pleadings. Jd.; Spivey v. Robertson, 197
F.3d 772, 774 (5" Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1229 (2000). The ultimate question in a Rule
12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid cause of action when it is viewed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Lowrey, 117
F.3d at 247. A plaintiff, however, must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, to
avoid dismissal. Guidry v. Bank ofLaPlace, 954 F.2d 278, 281 (5 Cir. 1992).
Ill. Analysis
A. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss®
1. Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, Civil RICO
RICO provides a private civil action to recover treble damages for injury resulting from a
violation of its substantive provisions. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 481 (1985);
Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., 138 F.3d 602, 606 (5" Cir. 1998). To state a civil RICO claim,
Plaintiffs must allege (1) the conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering
activity. As a preliminary matter, however, Plaintiffs must allege facts which show that they have
been injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);
see also Price, 138 F.3d at 606. Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue a civil RICO claim, if and can only
recover to the extent that, they have been injured in their business or property by the conduct
*Although each motion to dismiss asserts more than one ground for dismissal, Defendants all rely
on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In addition, several Defendants have either joined in existing motions to dismiss,
or adopted by reference the arguments contained in the motions and briefs of other Defendants. Because
most of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments overlap, the court will consider their respective motions
together.
Order - Page 6
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page 7of15 PagelD 199
constituting the violation. Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496. Finding it to be the dispositive issue, the court
need only address whether Plaintiffs have alleged an injury to their business or property.’
Plaintiffs do not dispute that personal injuries such as those alleged in their Complaint for
mental anguish and physical and psychological pain and suffering, including their resulting
pecuniary losses, are insufficient to confer standing, or that such injuries are outside the scope of
compensable injuries recoverable under RICO. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that their “lost value of
child labor” and “lost value of sufficient education” constitute an injury to property sufficient to
satisfy RICO’s “business or property” injury requirement. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they
have been “injured in their property because they were robbed of the value of their forced child slave
labor at the gurukulas, as well as the value of even a minimally sufficient education.” Pls.’ Compl.
pt. XIV, para. 6, at 41. Regarding their “lost value of child labor” theory, Plaintiffs reason that
because they were forced to perform various laborious tasks at ISKCON boarding schools without
compensation, they were robbed of the value of their labor, and because the taking of a person’s
money constitutes an injury to property, Plaintiffs have suffered a cognizable RICO property injury
-—— that is, a loss of money. As for their “lost value of minimally sufficient education” theory,
Plaintiffs contend that as a direct result of their lack of sufficient education, they have been unable
to find and retain employment. The court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments unpersuasive.
Plaintiffs classify their “property injury” as “lost value of child labor” and “lost value of a
minimally sufficient education.” Plaintiffs insist that these injuries are not an aspect of pecuniary
"Having determined that Plaintiffs’ RICO claims must be dismissed for failure to allege facts which
show that they have not suffered an injury to their business or property within the meaning of RICO, the
court does not address Defendants’ alternative grounds for dismissal.
Order - Page 7
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page 8of15 PagelD 200
losses resulting from their personal injury claims, but are separate injuries to their “property.” The
court, however, has located no Texas precedent — and none has been cited by Plaintiffs — which
holds that either the “value of child labor” or the “value of a minimally sufficient education”
constitutes “property” under Texas law. Moreover, while Plaintiffs contend that their property injury
is in essence “a loss of money,” they have failed to allege facts which show that they were
employees of the boarding schools, and therefore entitled to receive wages for any of their alleged
forced labor. In any event, even if the “value of child labor” and “value of a minimally sufficient
education” are recognized property interests in Texas, they are intangible ones, and therefore
insufficient to confer RICO standing. See Price, 138 F.3d at 607 (injury to an intangible property
interest is insufficient to confer RICO standing); see also Oscar v. University Students Coop. Ass’n,
965 F.2d 783, 785 (9% Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1020 (1992)(injury to a valuable intangible
property interest does not constitute injury to property for purposes of RICO). To establish a RICO
injury, Plaintiffs must allege facts which show that they suffered a tangible financial loss, that is, an
economic injury that is concrete and particular and not speculative. This they have failed to do.
Because Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts which show that they have suffered a cognizable
property injury within the ambit of the RICO statute, the court concludes that they can prove no set
of facts upon which relief can be granted, and that their RICO claims must be dismissed.°
*Because Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss are disfavored, the court will typically allow a plaintiff
who has failed to sufficiently plead facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted an opportunity
to amend his pleadings; however, in this case, amendment would be futile. See Price, 138 F.3d at 608. (In
deciding whether to allow amendment, the court may consider such factors as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motives, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice, and futility
ofamendment). Plaintiffs are represented by able counsel, and have now had four opportunities to articulate
their damage theory — Plaintiff's Original Complaint, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint, and Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. As
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint has failed to cure deficiencies present in the previous complaints,
Order - Page 8
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page9of15 PagelD 201
2. Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims
Having determined that Plaintiffs’ RICO claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, the only claims remaining in this action are Plaintiffs’ state law
claims. Defendants contend that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims because
they do no arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiffs’ RICO claims, and do not
“form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” In
the alternative, Defendants’ urge the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ state law claims, Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that supplemental jurisdiction does
exist because their common law tort claims arise from the same case or controversy as their RICO
claims, and that the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims
should it find that such jurisdiction exists. For purposes of this discussion, the court will assume,
without deciding, that it obtained supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims via
original jurisdiction over their federal claims arising from the same case or controversy.
Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim once all federal claims are
dismissed is within the discretion of the court. Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5 Cir. 1993).
The general rule is to dismiss state claims once the federal claims they are supplementing are
dismissed. See McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 155 F.3d 507, 519 (5" Cir. 1998); Engstrom v. First Nat'l
Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459, 1465 (5" Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818 (1995). This is
because once the crutch is removed — the claim that supports the supplemental jurisdiction of the
the court assumes that Plaintiffs have presented their best case and that further amendments would be futile.
The court sees no reason to subject Defendants to any further costs of litigation, or to further delay
disposition of this case.
Order - Page 9
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page10o0f15 PagelD 202
other claim(s) — the other claims should not remain for adjudication. See Noble, 996 F.2d at 799
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367 Practice Commentary (West Supp. 1993)). In determining whether to retain
jurisdiction, the court must consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, federalism, and
comity. Engstrom, 47 F.3d at 1465; see also Parker & Parsley Petroleum y. Dresser Indus., 972
F.2d 580, 585 (5" Cir. 1992)(citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7
(1988)). Because no single factor is dispositive, the court should consider all factors under the
specific circumstances of each case. Parker & Parsley, 972 F.2d at 587. “In the usual case in which
all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the
[supplemental] jurisdiction doctrine . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims.’” Jd. at 586-87. (citation omitted).
At this stage of the proceedings, the court finds that the principles of judicial economy favor
dismissal, as the court has invested minimal judicial resources in this case. Although Plaintiffs filed
this case more than a year ago, they filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 25, 2001, and
Defendants’ motions to dismiss were applied to that Complaint. Other than the instant dispositive
motions, the court has not had to resolve any other disputed matters in this case. Moreover, in an
effort to prevent the parties from incurring unnecessary costs of litigation, the court determined that
it should delay entry of a scheduling order until after it ruled on Defendants’ dispositive motions.
As a result, the parties have not engaged in active litigation of this case. The court therefore
concludes that this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
Likewise, the court finds that the parties would not be unduly inconvenienced or prejudiced
by the dismissal. As stated before, this case is in the pre-discovery phase. As such, no substantial
discovery has been conducted in the case such that the parties would be inconvenienced by an
Order - Page 10
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page11of15 PagelD 203
unnecessary duplication of efforts with respect to the state claims. Further, there has been little
activity in this case since the parties filed their written submissions regarding Defendants’
dispositive motions, and legal research conducted thus far by the parties has been in connection with
Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claims. The court therefore finds that the
parties would not be inconvenienced or prejudiced if the remaining state claims were to proceed in
state court. These factors militate in favor of dismissal.
Finally, the court finds that principles of federalism and comity weigh in favor of dismissal.
In United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, the Supreme Court emphasized that “[n]eedless
decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between
the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of the applicable law.” 383 U.S. 715, 726,
(1966). It is well-established that federal courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction . . . and often are
not as well equipped for determinations of state law as are state courts.” Parker & Parsley, 872 F.2d
at 588-89. In this case, Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims all arise under either Texas tort or contract
law. The state courts are much more familiar with these types of claims, and are better equipped to
determine them. The court therefore finds that principles of comity point toward dismissal.
For the reasons stated, the court finds that all factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal.
Given that this case is in the pre-discovery stage, there has been little commitment of federal judicial
resources, and dismissal will neither inconvenience nor prejudice the parties, the court concludes that
Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims should be dismissed. The court therefore declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and hereby dismisses those claims
without prejudice.
Order - Page 11
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page 12o0f15 PagelD 204
B. Remaining Motions
Also before the court are Defendant Resnick’s First Amended 12(b)(5) Motion to Dismiss;
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Howard Resnick; Defendant ISKCON Foundation,
Inc.’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Facts; and the Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus
Curiae. The court addresses each of these motions in turn below.
Defendant Resnick seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5),
contending that service of process upon him was legally insufficient. Specifically, Defendant
Resnick contends that Plaintiffs have not served him in a manner permitted under federal law
because they effected personal service on his brother TE ather than on him, as he was
out of the country on September 6, 2000, the date on which he was purportedly served with process.
In support of his motion, Defendant Resnick submits his declaration and the declaration of his
brother The court finds that Defendant Resnick’s motion is well taken; however,
it declines to dismiss this action against him based on improper service, as Plaintiffs have also
demonstrated good cause for their failure to effect proper service on him. A district court faced with
a Rule 12(b)(5) motion normally has discretion either to dismiss the action or to quash service.
Montalbano vy. Easco Hand Tools, Inc., 766 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the court
exercises its discretion and quashes service as to Defendant Resnick. Plaintiffs request that in the
event service is quashed, they be allowed 90 days within which to properly effect service on
Defendant Resnick. Plaintiffs also request that the court instruct counsel for Defendant Resnick to
provide them with his current address for service of process. To the extent Plaintiffs seek additional
time within which to effect proper service on Defendant Resnick, their motion is granted; however,
Order - Page 12
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page13o0f15 PagelD 205
the court believes that 45 days is sufficient for Plaintiffs to effect service of process on this
Defendant.
Accordingly, Defendant Resnick’s Amended 12(b)(5) Motion to Dismiss is denied; however,
service of process as to this Defendant is hereby quashed. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time
to Serve Howard Resnick is granted. Counsel for Defendant Resnick shall provide Plaintiffs with
Defendant Resnick’s current address for service of process by October 5, 2001, and Plaintiffs’ shall
effect service on Defendant Resnick by November 19, 2001, or risk dismissal of this lawsuit against
this Defendant without further notice.
Defendant ISKCON Foundation, Inc. moves the court to take judicial notice of its Articles
of Incorporation, which were filed with the Florida Secretary of State on April 14, 1993. The
Foundation contends that this evidence shows that it was not in existence at the time of the events
giving rise to Plaintiffs’ purported claims, and therefore supports its motion to dismiss. The court
finds it unnecessary to take judicial notice of this fact, as the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ RICO claims
against the Foundation on other grounds. Accordingly, Defendant ISKCON Foundation, Inc.’s
Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Facts is hereby denied as moot.
Amici curiae request permission to file an amicus brief in this case to address the viability
of Plaintiffs’ RICO claims against religious organizations. Because the court has determined that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege a cognizable RICO injury, it need not address the arguments raised
by amici curiae, and therefore finds that an amicus brief unnecessary. Accordingly, amici curiae’s
Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae is hereby denied as moot.”
°The court notes that Defendant Keith Ham has not filed a dispositive motion in this case. Nothing
contained in this order prevents him from doing so.
Order - Page 13
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page14o0f15 PagelD 206
C. Unserved Defendants
The court notes that several individuals and entities identified as Defendants in this case have
not been served with process, and that Plaintiffs have not yet ascertained the identities of Defendant
Does 1-30, despite an extension of time to do so. Specifically, those unserved Defendants are
Damodar Title Holding; ISKCON, Inc.; ISKCON Krishnafest USA, Inc.; ISKCON of Lake
Huntington Property Corporation; Gregory Gottfried, as Executor of the Estate of A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada; Robert Grant, as Executor of the Estate of A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupada; Gopal Khanna, Individually, and as Executor of the Estate of A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada; Glen Teton, as Executor of the Estate of A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupada; Charles Bacis; William Berke; Robert Corens; William Ehrlichman; John
Favors; Steven Goreyno, a/k/a Steven Guarino; Michael Grant; Theodore Richard Harris; Jeffrey
Hickey; Hans Kary; Bruce Scharf; Does 1-30; and Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc.
Pursuant to the court’s order dated December 11, 2000, service was to be effected on the
identified unserved Defendants by February 25, 2001. As of the date of this order, service has not
been effected, and Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for their failure to effect service on these
Defendants. Since service of process has not been effected on the identified unserved Defendants
in accordance with Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice
as to these Defendants. As for Defendants Does 1-30, Plaintiff shall identify and effect service on
these Defendants by November 19, 2001. If Plaintiff fails to do so, Defendants Does 1-30 will be
_ dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m).
Order - Page 14
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 135 Filed 09/28/01 Page 15o0f15 PagelD 207
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts which demonstrate that they have
been injured in their business or property as required by RICO. The court therefore concludes that
Plaintiffs can prove no set of facts which would entitle them to relief under RICO, and that
Plaintiffs’ civil RICO claims against Defendants must be dismissed. With the dismissal of their
RICO claims, the only claims remaining in this action are Plaintiffs’ state law claims. For the
reasons stated, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.
Accordingly, the court grants Defendant ISKCON Foundation, Inc.’s motion to dismiss; grants
Defendant Attar’s motion to dismiss; grants the ISKCON Defendants’ motion to dismiss; grants
Defendant ISKCON West Virginia’s motion to dismiss; grants Defendant Ogle’s motion to dismiss;
grants Defendants Texas Krishnas, Inc. and Thomas Herzig’s motion to dismiss; and grants
Defendants New Vrindaban Community Inc., NRS, Inc., and Jaga, Inc.’s motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs’ RICO claims against these Defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice, and
Plaintiffs’ state law claims against these Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. In addition,
Plaintiffs’ claims against the previously identified unserved Defendants in this case are hereby
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In light of the court’s ruling, the
only Defendants remaining in this case are Defendant Keith Ham, Defendant Howard Resnick, and
Defendants Does 1-30.
It is so ordered tis Abas ofSeptember, 2001.
Sam A. Lindsay y
United States Diétaet Judge
Order - Page 15