Baxter v. Miscavige

• Decision Date: 14 February 2023
• Docket Number: 8:22-cv-986-TPB-JSS
• Parties: GAWAIN BAXTER, LAURA BAXTER and VALESKA PARIS, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID MISCAVIGE, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, INC., IAS ADMINISTRATIONS, INC., CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC. and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

1

GAWAIN BAXTER, LAURA BAXTER and VALESKA PARIS, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID MISCAVIGE, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, INC., IAS ADMINISTRATIONS, INC., CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC. and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., Defendants.

No. 8:22-cv-986-TPB-JSS

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

February 14, 2023

ORDER

JULIE S. SNEED, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiffs move the court for an order declaring Defendant David Miscavige served with process pursuant to Florida Statute section 48.161 and entering default against Miscavige pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (Motion Dkt. 152.) Miscavige made a limited appearance in this matter to challenge service and oppose Plaintiffs' Motion. See (Dkts. 153, 163.) The court held a hearing on the Motion on January 20, 2023. (Dkt. 164.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

1. Factual Background and Parties

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 18 U.S.C §§ 1581-1597, against Miscavige and five organizational Defendants linked to the Church of Scientology^[1] (Organizational Defendants). (Dkt. 79 ¶¶ 1-2.) The Organizational Defendants include Religious Technology Center, Inc. (RTC), Church of Scientology International, Inc. (CSI), Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. (FSO), Church of Scientology Flag Ship Service Organization, Inc. (FSSO) and the International Association of Scientologists Administrations, Inc. (IASA). (Id. ¶¶ 2, 18-22.)

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants violated the TVPRA by committing, attempting, and conspiring to commit, and/or by participating in a trafficking venture that committed, attempted, and conspired to commit, forced labor and other human trafficking offenses against Plaintiffs[.]” (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs allege that as children, they were “coerced . . . to join the Defendants' ‘Sea Org' and provide unpaid labor and services for a decade or longer on Defendants' ocean going cruise ship vessel, the ‘Freewinds.'” (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants “knowingly obtained valuable benefits, including but not limited to financial enrichment, and free labor and services, like construction work, landscaping, and food preparation at [Defendants'] ‘Flag Base,' in Clearwater, Florida, and aboard the Freewinds.” (Id. ¶ 2.)

According to the Amended Complaint, the Church of Scientology “is organized and operates through a global network of corporations, trusts, and unincorporated associations and organizations.” (Dkt. 79 ¶ 26.) Miscavige is alleged to be the leader of the Church of Scientology, the Chairman of the Board of Defendant RTC, and the head of Scientology's Sea Org, “an unincorporated ‘association' of individuals,” whose members staff and manage the Organizational Defendants and all Scientology-related entities. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17, 25, 28.) Plaintiffs allege that “[b]ecause all [Organizational Defendants] are staffed and run by Sea Org members, [] Miscavige is effectively the senior-most officer of all of them regardless of whether he is listed as an officer or director in their corporate filings.” (Id. ¶ 16.) In his role, Miscavige “is kept informed about and directs the management of all [Organizational Defendants'] operations at a considerable level of detail[.]” (Id. ¶ 25.)

With respect to the Organizational Defendants, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant RTC is a California entity that is the “principal management, security, and enforcement operation for Scientology.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Defendant CSI is a non-profit corporation, headquartered in California, which, among other things, licenses Scientology's intellectual property. (Id. ¶ 19.) Defendant FSO is incorporated and headquartered in Florida and is alleged to be a licensee of Scientology's intellectual property from CSI. (Id. ¶ 20.) Among other things, FSO owns, manages, and operates “Flag Base, Scientology's substantial real property holdings in Clearwater, Florida,” which serves as “Scientology's global hub of operations and its largest source of revenues, providing (among other things) temporary quarters for visiting Scientologists, facilities for classes and auditing sessions, dining and meeting facilities, and the center where Defendants host large gatherings[.]” (Id.) Defendant FSSO is “a not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Clearwater, Florida [that] operates the Freewinds.” (Id. ¶ 21.)^[2] FSSO “also recruits and employs Sea Org members to work on its crew, and it collects fees from members of the International Association of Scientologists (IAS) for courses, services, and programs they participate in on the ship.” (Id. ¶ 21.) Finally, Defendant IASA is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in California, with offices and operations in Clearwater, Florida. (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiffs allege that “during the relevant time, IASA's principal place of business was in Clearwater, Florida from 2005 to 2014” and that Miscavige “exclusively directs all operations of IASA.” (Id.) Among other things, IASA collects membership dues and “administers and transfers those funds (and other payments solicited by IAS) under the exclusive direction of Defendant Miscavige, for his personal enrichment and benefit and for the benefit of [the Organizational Defendants], as well as the Freewinds and other Scientology-affiliated entities, organizations, properties, and enterprises.” (Id.)

Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants jointly and severally liable for compensatory and punitive damages for forced labor and attempted forced labor in violation of the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1594(a) (Count I); conspiracy to obtain forced labor in violation of the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1594(b) (Count II); trafficking and attempted trafficking with respect to forced labor in violation of the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1590, 1594(a) (Count III); conspiracy to traffic with respect to forced labor in violation of the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1590, 1594(b) (Count IV); peonage and attempted peonage in violation of the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581, 1594(a) (Count V); and conspiracy to commit peonage in violation of the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581, 1594(b) (Count VI). (Dkt. 79 ¶¶ 214-56.)

2. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on April 28, 2022. (Dkt. 1.) On July 28, 2022, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline to perfect service on Miscavige until September 12, 2022. (Dkt. 77.)^[3] Plaintiffs thereafter filed their Amended Complaint (Dkt. 79), which included additional facts regarding their attempts to locate Miscavige and serve him with process. See (id. ¶¶ 7-12.) On August 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed affidavits of non-service on Miscavige, discussing their attempts at personal service on Miscavige in Florida and California in July and August 2022. (Dkts. 91, 92.) On September 9, 2022, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for issuance of a summons to Miscavige in the care of Florida's Secretary of State to perfect service pursuant to Florida Statute section 48.161. (Dkt. 97.) The court then granted Plaintiffs a second extension of the deadline to perfect service on Miscavige until October 10, 2022. (Dkt. 100.) On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a declaration of compliance with Florida Statute section 48.161 (Dkt. 141), which Plaintiffs thereafter supplemented with additional information (Dkt. 151).

Plaintiffs now move the court for an order declaring Miscavige served with process through substitute service on Florida's Secretary of State pursuant to Florida Statute section 48.161. (Dkt. 152.) Plaintiffs also seek an order entering default against Miscavige pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (Id.) In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs rely on the allegations in the Amended Complaint and several documents submitted in support, including affidavits and declarations detailing their attempts to locate and serve Miscavige. See, e.g., (Dkts. 141, 151, 152.) Miscavige made a limited appearance in this matter, specifically to challenge service of process and oppose Plaintiffs' Motion. (Dkts. 153, 163.) In support of his opposition, Miscavige submits declarations refuting certain of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Miscavige's residence, place of business, and Plaintiffs' attempts to serve Miscavige with process. See, e.g., (Dkt. 163-1, 163-2, 163-7, 163-8, 163-9.) Following the hearing, Miscavige filed supplementary documentation with the court (Dkt. 166), and Plaintiffs filed a supplementary declaration of compliance with Florida Statute section 48.161 and supporting documentation, describing, among other things, their unsuccessful attempts to effectuate service on Miscavige following his counsel's appearance in this action (Dkt. 167).

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Constitutional due process requires that litigants have notice of an action brought against them and an opportunity to be heard. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding . . . is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”). Thus, after a complaint is filed, a “plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served” on a defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c). “[T]he fundamental purpose of service is ‘to give proper notice to the defendant in the case that he is answerable to the claim of plaintiff and therefore, to vest jurisdiction in the court...