Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States of America et al v. Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, Inc. et al
Filing
36
///ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss by G. Santy Lascano, William R. Miller, David P. Owen; granting 15 Motion to Dismiss by Ed Bousquet, Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, Inc., Richard L. Swaney; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss by Ronald G. Andress; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss by Glenn E. Almy. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Grand Encampment of Knights
Templar of the United States
of America and Grand Commandery
of Knights Templar of New Hampshire
v.
Civil No. 11-cv-463-JD
Opinion No. 2012 DNH 016
Conference of Grand Masters
of Masons in North America, Inc., et al.
O R D E R
The Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States
of America (“Grand Encampment”) and the Grand Commandery of
Knights Templar of New Hampshire brought suit in state court
against the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North
America, Inc. (“Conference”) and seven individuals associated
with the Conference.
court.
The defendants removed the case to this
Most of the defendants then filed motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction.1
The plaintiffs objected to the
motions.2
1
After the case was removed, the plaintiffs’ motion to amend
to add Donald H. Yankey as a defendant was granted.
2
The plaintiffs’ motion for jurisdictional discovery was
denied.
Standard of Review
“A district court, faced with a motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), may choose
from among several methods for determining whether the plaintiff
has met its burden of proving the court’s personal jurisdiction
over the defendant.”3
N. Laminate Sales, Inc. v. Davis, 403 F.3d
14, 22 (1st Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The
most common method is to determine whether the plaintiff has
proffered sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case of
personal jurisdiction.
Id.
“This inquiry asks whether the
plaintiff has proffered evidence which, if credited, is
sufficient to support findings of all facts essential to personal
jurisdiction.”
Lechoslaw v. Bank of Am., N.A., 618 F.3d 49, 54
(1st Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because the
parties submitted evidence in support of and in opposition to the
motions to dismiss, the court will proceed under the prima facie
method.
3
Although Defendant Donald M. Andress also cites Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which addresses improper venue,
Andress makes no argument in support of that part of his motion.
Therefore, venue is not considered here.
2
Background
The Knights Templar is a Masonic fraternal organization.
The Grand Encampment is the national level of the organization,
with an address in Texas.
The Knights Templar operates
nationally and on state and local levels.
The state
organizations are Grand Commanderies; local branches are
Commanderies; and individual members are known as Sir Knights.
The Grand Encampment raises money for its charities, the
Knights Templar Eye Foundation, the Knights Templar Educational
Foundation, and the Holy Pilgrimage Fund, which depend on money
raised by Sir Knights through the state Commanderies.
Some
current and former officers of the Grand Encampment are New
Hampshire residents, including Sir Knight Thomas X. Tsirimokos,
Past Grand Commander of the Grand Commandery and current Chairman
of the Grand Encampment Committee on Templar Jurisprudence.
The Conference and the individual defendants are part of a
Masonic organization known as the Grand Masters of Masons.
Conference is located in Missouri.
The
The individual defendants are
present and past Grand Masters of Grand Lodges of Free and
Accepted Masons in Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Alabama, and
Illinois and are also present or past members of a Knights
Templar organization.
3
The dispute between the Grand Encampment and the Conference
arose as the result of activities on January 22, 2011, in
Marseilles, France, during a ceremony held by a French Masonic
organization, the Great Priory of Occitania, which was attended
by members of the Grand Encampment, the National Grand Lodge of
France, the American Canadian Grand Lodge, the United Grand Lodge
of England, and the Grand Lodges of Illinois, Indiana, New York,
Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.
The Great Priory of Occitania
granted a patent to the Grand Encampment to establish the
Eleventh Province of the Scottish Rectified Rite (“Rectified
Rite”).
The Grand Encampment’s officers serve as the officers of
the Rectified Rite.
In early February of 2011, a gathering known as Masonic Week
was held in Alexandria, Virginia.
The gathering was attended by
members of Masonic organizations, including six Sir Knights from
New Hampshire.
William R. Miller, a Past Grand Master of the
Washington Grand Lodge, prepared a fact sheet which declared that
the Charter issued to the Grand Encampment was irregular, meaning
improperly or unlawfully established, and accused the Grand
Encampment of planning to establish irregular lodges.
An
attendee at Masonic Week told the New Hampshire Sir Knights about
Miller’s fact sheet.
After Masonic Week, Miller discussed his
concerns with other Grand Masters, including G. Santy Lascano,
4
Grand Master of the Washington Lodge, and Ed Bousquet, Grand
Master of the Oregon Grand Lodge.
The Conference’s Commission on Information for Recognition
published a report during the annual meeting of the Conference of
Grand Masters, held in Denver, Colorado, at the end of February,
declaring that the Grand Priory of Occitania was an irregular
organization.
The Commission’s report also expressed concern
about Grand Lodge members associating with irregular
organizations.
The report was published to all of the Grand
Lodges, including New Hampshire’s Grand Lodge.
In April, Lascano and Bousquet issued edicts that declared
the Grand Encampment and the Rectified Rite to be irregular and
directing their members not to communicate with its members.
After sending the edict, Bousquet talked by telephone with
Tsirimokos, who was in New Hampshire.
Bousquet informed
Tsirimokos that he was barred from attending the Grand Conclave
of Oregon because Tsirimokos held an office within the Grand
Encampment.
The Grand Master of the Oklahoma Grand Lodge, Glenn E. Almy,
sent a letter to Bousquet in which he stated that the Grand
Encampment was irregular and that its members would be barred
from an upcoming meeting in Oklahoma.
Almy’s letter then was
sent to other Grand Lodges, including the lodge in New Hampshire.
5
David P. Owen, the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of
Washington sent an email to the Grand Secretaries in all states,
declaring the Rectified Rite to be irregular and suggesting
similar action by other Grand Lodges.
Ronald G. Andress, Grand
Master of the Alabama Grand Lodge, and Richard L. Swaney, Grand
Master of the Illinois Grand Lodge, sent letters declaring the
Rectified Right to be irregular and precluding contact by their
members with members of the irregular organization.
The Grand Encampment alleges that the charges of
irregularity are false and defamatory and have interfered with
the Grand Encampment’s ability to raise money for its charities.
In this action, the plaintiffs bring claims of intentional
interference with contractual relations, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and civil
conspiracy.
Discussion
The Conference and the individual defendants assert,
supported by affidavits and other evidence, that the court lacks
personal jurisdiction as to each of them.
In response, the
plaintiffs argue in a consolidated memorandum that sufficient
evidence supports specific personal jurisdiction to avoid
6
dismissal.
The plaintiffs submit an affidavit and other evidence
in support of their objection.
Personal jurisdiction requires the plaintiffs to show that
the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
state to satisfy due process.
Cir. 2010).
Adams v. Adams, 601 F.3d 1, 5 (1st
The necessary showing for specific jurisdiction is
comprised of three inquiries:
“First, . . . whether the
asserted causes of action arise from or relate to the defendant’s
contacts with the forum, . . . .
Second, . . .
whether the
defendant purposefully availed itself of the protections of the
forum’s laws by means of those contacts, such that the defendant
could reasonably foresee being haled into the forum’s courts . .
. .
Third, . . .
whether an exercise of jurisdiction is
consistent with the principles of justice and fair play.”
Carreras v. PMG Collins, LLC, 660 F.3d 549, 554 (1st Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Each part of
specific jurisdiction is addressed in turn.
A.
Relatedness
“To demonstrate ‘relatedness,’ [the plaintiffs] must show a
demonstrable nexus between [their] claims and [each defendant’s]
forum-based activities, such that the litigation itself is
founded directly on those activities.”
7
Adelson v. Hananel, 652
F.3d 75, 81 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Activity, for jurisdictional purposes, does not require the
defendant’s physical presence in the forum state and, instead,
may be satisfied when an actual injury is caused in the forum
state.
Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 9
(1st Cir. 2009).
That is, in the context of an intentional
interference with contractual relations claim, when a defendant’s
actions outside the forum state interfere with a contract that is
to be performed in the forum state, the injury caused by the
interference is felt in the forum state.
Id. at 10.
The plaintiffs acknowledge the defendants’ lack of physical
contact with New Hampshire.
They argue instead, for purposes of
their claim for interference with contractual relations, that the
defendants’ activities caused an injury in New Hampshire. To
prove a claim of tortious interference with contractual
relations, the plaintiffs must show that they had a contractual
relationship with a third party, that the defendants knew of the
contractual relationship, and that the defendants wrongfully
induced the third party to breach the contract.
Nat’l Employment
Serv. Corp. v. Olsten Staffing Serv., Inc., 145 N.H. 158, 162
(2000); Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 392-93 (1996).
The plaintiffs rely on their allegations that the defendants
falsely accused the Grand Encampment of being irregular and
8
impaired the Grand Commanderies’ ability to collect dues from Sir
Knights which “rendered it impossible for the Grand Encampment to
oversee funds collected for the charitable purposes . . . .”
Mem. doc. no. 22 at 11.
Pl.
The plaintiffs’ cite their allegations
that through their false allegations, the defendants
“intentionally interfered with the Grand Encampment’s and the
Grand Commandery’s contractual relationships with their Sir
Knights.
Specifically, the false accusations impaired each
organization’s likelihood and ability to collect dues from its
Sir Knights, and rendered it impossible for the Grand Encampment
to oversee funds collected for the charitable purposes described
[in the complaint].”
Id.
The plaintiffs contend that the
following occurrences show relatedness with New Hampshire:
someone sent Almy’s letter to the Grand Master of the New
Hampshire Grand Commandery, Owen sent his email to the secretary
of the New Hampshire Grand Lodge, Bousquet told Tsirimokos who
was in New Hampshire that Tsirimokos was barred from attending a
meeting in Oregon, the Conference’s declaration was sent to the
New Hampshire Grand Lodge, and Miller distributed his fact sheet
at the Virginia meeting that was attended by New Hampshire Sir
Knights.
The plaintiffs’ allegations show no contact with New
Hampshire by Lascano, Andress, and Swaney.
9
The plaintiffs allege
that someone other than Almy sent his letter to New Hampshire.
Therefore, the plaintiffs’ provide no basis for personal
jurisdiction as to those defendants.
The plaintiffs have not shown or even alleged that Owen’s
email, Miller’s fact sheet, Bousquet’s telephone conversations,
or the Conference’s report caused any New Hampshire Sir Knights
not to pay dues.
Even if the plaintiffs could show that a
contractual relationship with the Grand Encampment and the New
Hampshire Grand Commandery required New Hampshire Sir Knights to
pay dues to either or both of them and that because of the
defendants’ actions the New Hampshire Sir Knights did not pay the
required dues, the plaintiffs allege that the effect of not
paying dues was felt by either the Grand Encampment, which is not
in New Hampshire, or its charities, which also are not in New
Hampshire.
The plaintiffs’ reliance on Astro-Med, 591 F.3d 1,
and Medicus Radiology, LLC v. Nortec Med. Staffing, Inc., 2011 WL
9373 (D.N.H. Jan. 3, 2011), is misplaced as the circumstances in
those cases are inapposite to the circumstances here.
Therefore,
the plaintiffs have not shown that any of their claims are
sufficiently related to the defendants’ activities in New
Hampshire to support personal jurisdiction.
10
B.
Purposeful Availment
Even if the plaintiffs were able to satisfy the relatedness
prong, they did not provide a prima facie case for purposeful
availment.
The plaintiffs again focus on their intentional
interference with contractual relations claim.
They argue that
the defendants’ actions of declaring the Grand Encampment and the
Rectified Rite irregular satisfy the purposeful availment
requirement through the “effects test,” relying on the analysis
in Astro-Med and arguing that the same conduct by the defendants’
in this case shows purposeful availment.
In Astro-Med, the plaintiff was a Rhode Island corporation
with its principle place of business in Rhode Island and sued the
defendant in Rhode Island for tortious interference with its
contractual relationship with a sales representative.
at 6-7.
591 F.3d
The defendant, a California corporation and a competitor
of the plaintiff, hired one the plaintiff’s sales representatives
in Florida to replace its own Florida representative.
Id. at 7.
The defendant asserted a lack of personal jurisdiction because it
was located in California and the hiring, which was the subject
of the claim, occurred in Florida.
Id. at 7-8.
The court noted that to satisfy purposeful availment the
defendant’s contacts with Rhode Island “had to represent a
purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in
11
the forum state . . . .”
omitted).
Id. at 10 (internal quotation marks
The court concluded the requirement was met because
the defendant knew that the sales representative was bound by an
employee agreement with the plaintiff and that the agreement
provided that the laws of Rhode Island governed the agreement and
that the sales representative consented to suit in Rhode Island.
Id.
In this case, none of the cited connections between the
individual defendants or the Conference even suggests that any of
them invoked the benefits or protections of New Hampshire law.
The plaintiffs do not allege any provisions of a contract or an
agreement between them and Sir Knights in New Hampshire that
would support purposeful availment.
Therefore, the plaintiffs
failed to make even a prima facie case to support purposeful
availment.
Because the plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of
providing a prima facie case as to the first two requirements for
specific personal jurisdiction, the court need not consider the
reasonableness requirement.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motions to
dismiss (documents nos. 13, 15, 16, and 18) are granted.
12
Because
the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Conference of
Grand Masters of Masons in North America, Inc., G. Santy Lascano,
David P. Owen, Ed Bousquet, Glenn E. Almy, Ronald G. Andress,
Richard L. Swaney, and William Miller, all claims against those
defendants are dismissed.
As is noted above, the plaintiffs added Donald H. Yankey as
a defendant in the amended complaint filed on October 25, 2011.
Therefore, judgment cannot be entered at this time.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
January 18, 2012
cc:
Jennifer Turco Beaudet, Esquire
Mark A. Darling, Esquire
Kathleen A. Davidson, Esquire
Lawrence B. Gormley, Esquire
Jamie N. Hage, Esquire
Thomas J. Pappas, Esquire
Michael D. Ramsdell, Esquire
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?