Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C. 1201 THIRD AVENUE, STE 3200, SEATTLE, WASH INGTON 98101 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., STE. 500, W ASHINGTON, DC 20005 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs on Signature Page AdditionalPlaintiffs Page Signature Counsel for on Email: [email protected] (805) (805) Tel: 456-1497 Fax: / 456-1496 93101 Santa CA Barbara, Street, 801 Garden 301 Suite E. Juli Esq. Bar Farris, 141716) No. (CA L.L.P.ROHRBACK KELLER [email protected] Email: [email protected] (206) (206) Tel: 623-3384 Fax: / 623-1900 98101 WA Seattle, Avenue, 1201 3200 Suite Third ( M. Matthew Gerend L. Lynn ( Sarko L.L.P.ROHRBACK KELLER [email protected] [email protected] Email: (202) (202) Tel: 408-4699 Fax: / 408-4600 Washington, D.C. 20005 SuiteTower 500, East N.W. 1100 New York Avenue, C. Michelle Yau ( L. ( Handorf Karen COHEN MILSTEIN TOLL, SELLERS PLLC. & each an 1-20,an each individual, JANE DOES, Subcommittee,and JOHN and the Health RetirementDignity individual Plans ROBINSON,DARRYL individual, an Corporation, HERBERT VALLIER, an J. Non-profit DIGNITY a California HEALTH, Plan, the Dignity of others situated, similarly all of on behalf and on of behalf themselves, on behalf individually, ROLLINS and WILSON,PATRICIA STARLA NO. 13NO. - CV v. v. - Case 3:13-cv-01450-JSTDocument257Filed02/09/18Page1of55 1450JST pro pro hac vice pro pro hac vice Defendants. pro pro hac vice Plaintiffs, pro pro hac vice NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADISTRICT NORTHERN ) ) UNITED STATES COURTDISTRICT UNITED ) ) ) SAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONSAN FRANCISCO ) Trial Date: Trial None Set Judge: Courtroom: 9 Time: Date: MOTIONDEFENDANTS’ TO DISMISS TO OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS’ No.Case JST 13-CV-1450 Hon. Jon S. Tigar Hon.Tigar Jon S. 2:00 p.m. 22, March 2018 DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONTO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’OPPOSITION TO K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C. 1201 THIRD AVENUE, STE 3200, SEATTLE, WASH INGTON 98101 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., STE. 500, W ASHINGTON, DC 20005 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 V. IV. III. II. I. NO. 13NO. - CV LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................................ STANDARDS LEGAL 4 ..........................................................................................................BACKGROUND 3 ..........................................................................................STATEMENT ISSUES OF 3 ........................................................................................................INTRODUCTION 1 B. A. ............................................................................................................... ARGUMENT 5 - Case 3:13-cv-01450-JSTDocument257Filed02/09/18Page2of55 1450JST 1. ............................................................................. a Church.Associated with” 18 or Dignity by the Is Thatnor Subcommittee “Controlled Neither Is Plaintiffs Because Plausibly Plan NotPlan Allege The Church a 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. ............................................................................................ Entity. Permissible 5 Is It Because a Plan Not Plan by The Maintained Is Church Not a with the Catholic Church. .................................................................... Church. the with Catholic 18 Is StatementsNot Clear: Dignity Official Are Associated .......................................................................................... Persuasive. 17 Position northe Informal Controlling of The IRS Is Neither ................................... as a Principal-Purpose Qualify “Organization.” 15 the Plan, If It the “Maintained” Even Subcommittee Cannot ....................................................................................... Organization. 14 Is Neither a Church Dignity norPrincipal-Purpose a e. d. c. b. a. ................................. the and Plan.No Dignity, Maintains Entity, Other 6 .................... Two Plan. a Maintain May Church Entities of Only Types 5 Congressional Intent. ............................................................... Intent.Congressional 13 Is “Administered” AdvocateConsistent with and and Between “Maintained” Distinction The ..................................... Defendants’ “Settlor”Fail. Arguments 11 ......................................... toAdministered. “Maintained” Mean 9 Does 33(C)(i) Subparagraph Not Redefine ........................ the Subcommittee The Plan. Does Maintain Not 8 ...................................................................Participants. to Plan 6 Ongoing the Responsibility” Primary “Has Dignity TABLE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PAGE i- DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONTO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’OPPOSITION TO K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C. 1201 THIRD AVENUE, STE 3200, SEATTLE, WASH INGTON 98101 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., STE. 500, W ASHINGTON, DC 20005 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 VI. NO. 13NO. - CV CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... CONCLUSION 40 E. D. C. - Case 3:13-cv-01450-JSTDocument257Filed02/09/18Page3of55 1450JST 2. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. ............................... Plausibly StateClaims. Allege Alternative Plaintiffs Law 31 ..................................................................................... Establishment Clause. 27 the the the of Exemption toPlan Violate Application Would ........................... 33(D)Reliance on Defendants’ Is Subparagraph Misplaced. 27 5. 4. 3. Dignity Medina’sto Even “Broad”Fails Dignity Standard Satisfy Breached Its Fiduciary Duties. ............................................................. Duties. ItsBreached Fiduciary 40 Plausibly Allege the ThatSubcommittee Plaintiffs ...................... UnjustMay Allege Plaintiffs Alternatively Enrichment. 40 ................................... Performance. Entitled to Plaintiffs Are Specific 39 ...................................StateContract.of Plaintiffs for Breach a Claim 36 b. a. .................33 StandingHave Stateto Plaintiffs Their AssertClaims. Law ................................................................................................ Claims. 31 over CourtPlaintiffs’ This Alternative Jurisdiction Has ...........................................................................................Misplaced. 25 Are Orthodoxy” Defendants’ “Religious Arguments ....................... CreateAssociation. Cannot Defendants an Unilaterally 25 c. b. a. ................................................................................ Authority. Circuit 21 Is PursuantNot a to Church Dignity any Associated with ................................................................................... for Association. 20 Plaintiffs’ Injuries Are “Individualized.” .................................. Injuries “Individualized.”Plaintiffs’ Are 35 ........................................................ Injuries-in-Fact.Suffered) 33 Have Plausibly Have Alleged (and Plaintiffs .......................... Requirements. No Are There Denominational 24 ................................................................ Financial Assistance. 24 Does Ongoing Catholic Church Not The Provide ............................................................... Governance. Role” in 22 an Does Catholic Church Not The “Official Play PAGE PAGE ii- DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONTO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’OPPOSITION TO K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T O L L , P L L C. 1201 THIRD AVENUE, STE 3200, SEATTLE, WASH INGTON 98101 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., STE. 500, W ASHINGTON, DC 20005 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation District Employee Pension Plan Employee ofPension v.Canova Imperial Trustees Irrigation District Tribe v. Cal.Comm’n Cal. Miwok Gambling Valley Control Cacchillo v. Inc. Insmed, Brandwein v. Butler v. Bowen Kendrick Blue Rancheria v.States Lake United Ret.Knox Blaw Indus., v. Inc. Income Consol. White Plan Bennett Spear v. Bd.Educ. Grumet v. of Ashcroft Iqbalv. H Arbaugh Corp v. Y & v.Anderson Corp UNUM Provident Inc. AdvancePCS Plan Drug v.Glanton ALCOA ex rel. Prescription v. Advocate Stapleton Network Health Care Adedipe U.S. v. Bank, N.A. Cases NO. 13NO. 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 587 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) .................................................................... 59 Rptr.Ct. (Cal. Cal. 587 2007) App. 3d 12, 40 ....................................................................... 180 Rptr.Ct. (Cal. Cal. 499 2014) App. 3d 40 ............................................................................................. 638 2011) (2dF.3d 401 Cir. 33 ....................................................................... 161 Rptr.Ct. (Cal. Cal. 728 2013) App. 3d 37 .........................................................................................................487 U.S. (1988) 589 28 .......................................................................................... 653 Cir. (9th 2011) F.3d 1112 17 998 1993)............................................................................................ (3dF.2d 1185 Cir. 14 ..............................................................................................520