JUDGE DENIES
LAWRENCE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Today, March 7, 2018, Judge Richard Gergel, the United States District Court judge handling the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence denied Bishop Mark Lawrence's motion to dismiss part of the federal suit. (The federal suit was filed in March of 2013. In it, the Church bishop, vonR, brought charges against Mark Lawrence for trademark infringement and false advertising, violations of the federal Lanham Act, an act of Congress that protects trademarks, such as those of the Episcopal Church.)
On February 20, Lawrence filed with the federal court a motion to dismiss Count II of the Church's Second Amended Complaint: "moves this Court for dismissal of Count II (trademark infringement of the South Carolina State Trademarks)...for lack of standing." In a separate Memorandum to the court, filed on the same day, Lawrence argued: "The Plaintiff Bishops [vonR and Adams] are not the owners or exclusive licensees of the South Carolina State Trademarks. Therefore, the Plaintiff Bishops lack standing to bring the federal trademark infringement claim concerning the South Carolina State Trademarks..."
The Church diocese's lawyer, Thomas Tisdale, filed a response to Lawrence's motion to dismiss, on March 6. He pointed out an obvious fact, the U.S. District Court had already recognized Bishop vonR's standing, in an order of August 23, 2013: "Accordingly, Bishop vonRosenberg, in addition to satisfying the first and second elements of prudential standing, satisfied the third. Thus, this action may not be dismissed for lack of standing."
Today, Judge Gergel issued an "Order," stating "The Court has already ruled that Bishop vonRosenberg has standing to assert infringement claims." Besides, as he pointed out, the Church diocese (the Episcopal Church in South Carolina) had already filed a motion to intervene (on Mar. 1, 2018). That motion is before the court and, if granted, would make moot the question of the standing. On these grounds, Gergel went on to deny Lawrence's motion to dismiss but added that after the court rules on TECSC's Mar. 1 motion to intervene, Lawrence may ask the court for reconsideration.
What this suggests to me is that Judge Gergel is resolved to have a full and thorough consideration of this case and to do so with all dispatch. We can expect Gergel to move this along expeditiously. His "Order" of Mar 7 was one day after the Church side filed its response to Lawrence's motion. First, he will have to rule on the motions the Church side made on Mar. 1. There will have to be a "discovery" period, probably of several months, in which both sides prepare for the trial. Then, there will be the trial before Gergel. At the rate the judge is going, I would expect the trial before the end of the year.
The independent Diocese of South Carolina has already established a clear pattern of obstruction and delay. They delayed the state supreme court decision from August to November only to be completely rejected by the court a second time. They used Gergel's mediation order (Aug. 30, 2017) to delay the federal case (it was put on stay during the mediation) by three months only to fail to make a negotiated settlement. In addition, they have appealed the state supreme court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. That however, has not put the state supreme court decision on stay. It is active. Thus, it seems to me that DSC's flimsy motion to dismiss in federal court is just another grasping at the straws that are growing increasingly limp and scarce. Judge Richard Gergel seems to me to be the kind of judge who is not going to put up with this kind of delay of justice.
Let's be realistic here. One of the two major issues between the two sides of the schism has been settled. The SC supreme court ruled that the Episcopal Church and its diocese have control over 29 of the 36 parishes in question. This leaves DSC with 6 (the 7th is St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant, part of another diocese). The other major issue is before the federal court now. It is which of the two sides is entitled to the legal rights and assets of the pre-schism diocese. Right now, it is looking good for the Church side.
Why is DSC employing the delaying tactic? I think it is to give them space to enact their secret plan of Dec. 1, 2017. This was the scheme to move the Lawrence followers out of the 29 Episcopal church buildings into new churches attached to DSC. The model for this was the experience of Lawrence's old parish, St. Paul's of Bakersfield. There, the court ordered the property returned to the Episcopal Church and the secessionists successfully moved the vast majority of communicants out to new quarters, even to build new buildings.
The independent Diocese of South Carolina has already established a clear pattern of obstruction and delay. They delayed the state supreme court decision from August to November only to be completely rejected by the court a second time. They used Gergel's mediation order (Aug. 30, 2017) to delay the federal case (it was put on stay during the mediation) by three months only to fail to make a negotiated settlement. In addition, they have appealed the state supreme court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. That however, has not put the state supreme court decision on stay. It is active. Thus, it seems to me that DSC's flimsy motion to dismiss in federal court is just another grasping at the straws that are growing increasingly limp and scarce. Judge Richard Gergel seems to me to be the kind of judge who is not going to put up with this kind of delay of justice.
Let's be realistic here. One of the two major issues between the two sides of the schism has been settled. The SC supreme court ruled that the Episcopal Church and its diocese have control over 29 of the 36 parishes in question. This leaves DSC with 6 (the 7th is St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant, part of another diocese). The other major issue is before the federal court now. It is which of the two sides is entitled to the legal rights and assets of the pre-schism diocese. Right now, it is looking good for the Church side.
Why is DSC employing the delaying tactic? I think it is to give them space to enact their secret plan of Dec. 1, 2017. This was the scheme to move the Lawrence followers out of the 29 Episcopal church buildings into new churches attached to DSC. The model for this was the experience of Lawrence's old parish, St. Paul's of Bakersfield. There, the court ordered the property returned to the Episcopal Church and the secessionists successfully moved the vast majority of communicants out to new quarters, even to build new buildings.
