Cristo v. Cayabyab
| Decision Date | 31 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-00561-BLF |
| Parties | IGLESIA NI CRISTO, Plaintiff, v. LUISITO E. CAYABYAB; ISAIAS T. SAMSON, JR.; ROLANDO DIZON, JR.; LIONEL ROQUE DE LA USO; ALLAN MONTE DE RAMOS; JERIEL NEMIS; JESLE LLABAN KUIZON; BERNARD GARCIA; LIEZL DIAZ-DEOCAMPO; EDWIN LIONEL R. MORA; ALLAN VILLANUEVA; and H2O NOW USA, a California Non-Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
[Re: ECF 125]
Plaintiff Iglesia Ni Cristo ("INC"), a non-profit religious corporation, sues eleven of its former ministers, officers, and members ("Individual Defendants") and the non-profit religious corporation they formed, Defendant H2O Now USA ("H2O"). INC claims that Defendants hold themselves out as affiliated with INC, using INC's trademarked name, Seal, Executive Seal, and Flag, and INC's copyrighted hymns, thus causing confusion to INC's members and to the public.
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of H2O and eight of the Individual Defendants (collectively, "Moving Parties"): Luisito E. Cayabyab ("Cayabyab"), Rolando Dizon, Jr. ("Dizon"), Lionel Roque De La Uso ("De La Uso"), Allan Monte De Ramos ("Ramos"), Jesle Llaban Kuizon ("Kuizon"), Liezl Diaz-DeoCampo ("DeoCampo"), Edwin Lionel R. Mora ("Mora"), and Allan Villaneuva ("Villanueva"). See MSJ, ECF 125. INC has filed opposition, and Moving Parties have filed a reply. See Opp., ECF 126; Reply, ECF 129. After the reply was filed, INC filed an administrative motion seeking leave to file the Declaration of Restituto S. Lazaro, which was inadvertently omitted from Plaintiff's opposition, as well as a sur-reply brief. See Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply, ECF 130. The Court granted INC leave to file the Lazaro declaration and denied leave to file a sur-reply brief. See Order Granting in Part Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply, ECF 132.
The Court heard oral argument on February 27, 2020. At the start of the hearing, Moving Parties' counsel clarified that the motion had been brought on behalf of Defendant DeoCampo in error, as DeoCampo has filed for bankruptcy. The docket reflects that a Notice of Automatic Stay was filed with respect to DeoCampo on October 20, 2018. See Notice of Automatic Stay, ECF 54. In light of the automatic bankruptcy stay, the Court does not consider the motion with respect to DeoCampo.
For the reasons discussed below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Defendants De La Uso, Ramos, Kuizon, Mora, and Villanueva, and GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to Defendants Cayabyab, Dizon, and H2O.
The remaining three Defendants, Isaias T. Samson, Jr. ("Samson"), Jeriel Nemis ("Nemis"), and Bernard Garcia ("Garcia"), have not appeared. Bernard Garcia was served after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. See Proof of Service, ECF 134. The docket does not show that service of process has been effected on Samson and Nemis.1 INC is granted thirty days to file proof of service on Samson and Nemis; failure to do so will result in dismissal of Samson and Nemis for failure to effect service of process as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
INC filed the complaint in this action on January 25, 2018, alleging that Defendant H20 was formed by a group of ministers and members who were expelled from INC; Defendants hold themselves out as INC congregations, using INC's trademarked Seal, Executive Seal, and Flag, and INC's copyrighted hymns; and Defendants operate websites that publish rumors, unfoundedallegations, accusations, and lies about INC, and expose confidential information about INC. See Compl., ECF 1. INC asserted claims for copyright and trademark infringement under federal law, and claims for unfair competition, breach of confidential relationship, and libel under California law. See id.
Several Defendants responded by filing an anti-SLAPP motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, and a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Motion to Dismiss, ECF 14; Anti-SLAPP Motion, ECF 15. Defendants asserted that they resigned or were expelled from INC after publicly criticizing INC for corruption within the church and lavish lifestyles maintained by INC officers. See Anti-SLAPP Motion, ECF 15. According to Defendants, this lawsuit was filed in retaliation for, and to chill, Defendants' public criticism of INC. See id. After determining that the complaint presented "mixed" claims based on both protected and unprotected activity, the Court deferred consideration of the anti-SLAPP motion and granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion with leave to amend. See Order Deferring Ruling on Anti-SLAPP Motion, ECF 50.
INC filed a first amended complaint on October 17, 2020, dropping its state law claims for breach of confidential relationship and libel, and focusing on Defendants' alleged infringement of its copyrights and trademarks. See FAC, ECF 53. Several Defendants again filed anti-SLAPP and Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See Anti-SLAPP Motions, ECF 58, 73; Motions to Dismiss, ECF 59, 60. The Court denied the anti-SLAPP motions and granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motions in part, with leave to amend. See Order Denying Anti-SLAPP Motions, ECF 110.
The operative second amended complaint ("SAC") was filed on September 13, 2019, asserting claims for: (1) false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (2) copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; (3) trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 11142; (4) unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and (5) unfair competition under state common law. See SAC, ECF 111.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 5, asserted against all Defendants, are grounded in Defendants' alleged use of INC's trademarks. Claim 1, for false designation of origin, alleges that Defendants' use of INC's name, Seal, Executive Seal, and Flag, has caused confusion to INC's members and to the general public regarding Defendants' affiliation with INC. SAC ¶¶ 52-55. Each Defendant is alleged to have used one or more of INC's trademarks in worship services, websites, social media accounts, and pamphlets. SAC ¶¶ 56-68. Claim 3, for trademark infringement, alleges that Defendants unlawfully have used INC's registered trademarks in its name, Seal, Executive Seal, and Flag. SAC ¶¶ 89-104. Claims 4 and 5, for unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and state common law, respectively, are based on Defendants' alleged use of INC's trademarks. SAC ¶¶ 107-110, 112-114.
Claim 2, asserted against Defendants H2O, Cayabyab, and Dizon, alleges that those Defendants infringed INC's copyrights in a number of hymns. INC alleges that H2O, Cayabyab, and Dizon used its copyrighted hymns in worship services, distributed the hymns in printed form to persons attending worship services, and posted the lyrics of the hymns on YouTube. SAC ¶¶ 79-86.
An answer was filed on behalf of Defendants H2O, De La Uso, Ramos, Kuizon, Mora, and Villanueva on September 26, 2019. See Answer, ECF 112. A separate answer was filed on behalf of Defendants Cayabyab and Dizon on September 27, 2019. See Answer, ECF 113.
Moving Parties now seek summary judgment with respect to all claims in the SAC.
"A party is entitled to summary judgment if the 'movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). "The moving party initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." In re Oracle, 627 F.3d at 387. "Where the moving party meets that burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial." Id. "[T]he non-moving party must come forth with evidence from which a jury could reasonably render a verdict in the non-moving party's favor." Id. "The courtmust view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor." City of Pomona, 750 F.3d at 1049. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The motion for summary judgment is quite straightforward. Moving Parties Cayabyab, Dizon, De La Uso, Ramos, Kuizon, Mora, and Villaneuva have submitted declarations denying use of INC's name, trademarks, or hymns since leaving INC. See Declarations, ECF 125-1 through 125-7. In his role as Chief Executive Officer of H2O, Cayabyab also denies H2O's use of INC's trademarks or hymns. Cayabyab Decl. ¶¶ 3-7, ECF 125-1. The single exception to these denials is Dizon's admission that he performed INC's hymns during worship services. See Dizon Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 125-4. However, Moving Parties argue that Dizon's performance of the hymns in the course of religious worship services did not violate the Copyright Act.
In opposition, INC contends that it has submitted a "mountain of evidence" establishing Defendants' culpability. Opp. at 1, ECF 126. Most of that evidence is submitted as exhibits to the Declaration of Nicole Goss, one of INC's attorneys in this case. See Goss Decl., ECF 126; Exhibits, ECF 126-1 through 126-6. INC also requests judicial notice of the contents of INC's "Our History" webpage. See Pl.'s RJN, ECF 127. In reply, Moving Parties object to the bulk of the exhibits attached to the Goss Declaration and to INC's request for judicial notice. Moving Parties assert that INC has not submitted any admissible evidence establishing the existence of material issues of fact for trial.
The Court first takes up Moving Parties' evidentiary objections...
To continue reading
Request your trial