Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International, Inc. v. Robin Scott

869 F.2d 1306 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1379 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robin SCOTT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 87-5766. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 16, 1988. Decided March 10, 1989. Earle C. Cooley, Cooley, Manion, Moore & Jones, Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs-appellants. Jerold Fagelbaum, Shea & Gould, Los Angeles, Cal. and Gary M. Bright, Bright & Powell, Carpinteria, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before NORRIS, HALL and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 This appeal arises out of litigation initiated by the Church of Scientology 1 ("Church") against the Church of the New Civilization 2 ("New Church"). The focus of the litigation is certain scriptural material allegedly stolen from the Church by the New Church. 3 Early in the litigation, the district court granted the Church a preliminary injunction restraining the New Church from using the disputed scriptures. That injunction was vacated on appeal. Religious Technology Center v.…

This appeal arises out of litigation initiated by the Church of Scientology 1 (“Church”) against the Church of the New Civilization 2 (“New Church”). The focus of the litigation is certain scriptural material allegedly stolen from the Church by the New Church. 3 Early in the litigation, the district court granted the Church a preliminary injunction restraining the New Church from using the disputed scriptures. That injunction was vacated on appeal. Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, 796 F.2d 1076, 1084, 1089-91 (9th Cir.1986), (“Wollersheim”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1103 , 107 S.Ct. 1336 , 94 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987). The Church then filed a second application for interlocutory relief, which was denied by the district court on the ground that it was foreclosed by Woller-sheim. The Church now appeals that denial. We reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings in light of this opinion.

I

BACKGROUND

In its complaint, the Church stated claims against the New Church for racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c)) (“RICO”), trademark infringement under federal and common law, unfair competition, receipt of…

dissenting:

I agree that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal and that the district court erred in construing our decision in Wollersheim I so broadly. I cannot join the majority opinion, however, because a remand to the district court for further evaluation of the appropriateness of preliminary relief constitutes an enormous waste of judicial resources.

In Wollersheim I, the Church of Scientology (the “Church”) sought and obtained a preliminary injunction, based in part on its claim that the Church of the New Civilization (the “New Church”) stole its protected trade secrets. The Church alleged that New Church adherents took certain scriptural materials from the Church when they left to form the New Church. The Church, however, did not characterize the alleged harm as commercial or economic. Instead, the Church alleged only that its followers would suffer spiritual injury if the New Church was permitted to retain and use the scriptures. On appeal, we held that the Church’s failure to allege or offer proof that the scriptures had economic value meant that the scriptures did not qualify as trade secrets under California law.

Following our decision, the Church returned to the…