Aquarian Foundation v. Lowndes et al

Filing 175

ORDER denying Defendant Bruce Kimberley Lowndes's 118 Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit under the American Constitution Amendment One. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

AQUARIAN FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. C19-1879RSM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT B.K.
LOWNDES’S MOTION TO DISMISS
UNDER FIRST AMENDMENT

BRUCE KIMBERLY LOWNDES, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Bruce Kimberley Lowndes’s “Motion

17
18

to Dismiss Lawsuit under the American Constitution Amendment One.” Dkt. #118. The Court

19

interprets this pro se filing as a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief

20

can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). While this is the most likely relief sought by Defendant

21

Lowndes, the Motion does not cite to this Rule or any other basis for dismissing the lawsuit.

22
23

Instead, the filing reads as a letter addressed to the Court. See id. at 2. The filing appears to

24

argue that Plaintiff’s copyright claims violate Defendants’ First Amendment right to the free

25

exercise of religious practice. Id. However, Mr. Lowndes fails to adequately connect the facts

26

of this case to legal arguments. Instead, he briefly discusses the Bill of Rights generally before

27

diving into a lengthy history of the religious practice at issue in this case, “Spiritualism.” See

28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT B.K. LOWNDES’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
FIRST AMENDMENT - 1

1

id. at 3–7. After sharing the details of several séances (“I personally observed large Crystal &

2

Glass spheres rise-up from flat Hotel Towels”), Mr. Lowndes discusses in one or two sentences

3

efforts to “get the message out” through printed materials and cassette tapes. Id. at 4–5. He

4

argues that the divine message of Spiritualism was not meant to be controlled solely by Plaintiff

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

and states that “[t]he Copyright issue is Evil dressed in Female form.” Id. at 5–6. He lists the
following arguments to support this Motion:
1. Aquarian Foundation has not established Legal Copyright nor
Legal Ownership of Public Domain Lessons meant for the Public.
2. Aquarian Foundation has not proved their action of substituting
KMR for the actual Authors name is Legal.
3. 53 Lessons listed by Aquarian are Copyrighted by Alvis Dunn
Executor of KMR’s Estate. Lessons prior 1967 are not
copyrighted.
4. Aquarian has lied and lied and been found wanting, it is the
obtuse, Evil erroneous Greed driven Werner & Cohort (to use their
words) who wish to use Copyright as the excuse and refuse to
acknowledge.
5. Lowndes has had actual permission to use copyrighted Materials
since 1975.
6. Lowndes and Mrs Alvis Dunn visited Val Rhinehart in
Cheyenne, Wyoming, who stated Copyright was to protect her
young son and to minimize Plagiarism, never to block the real God
from the World.

19

Id. at 6. These arguments are not expanded upon in this Motion. Mr. Lowndes simply repeats

20

again and again that the Court should protect his First Amendment rights.

21

In making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts alleged in the complaint as

22
23

true, and makes all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker v.

24

Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).

25

However, the court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual

26

allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

27

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT B.K. LOWNDES’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
FIRST AMENDMENT - 2

1

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This requirement is met

2

when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

3

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include

4

detailed allegations, but it must have “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

5
6
7

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Absent
facial plausibility, a plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Id. at 570.

8

This six-page Motion (the filing is longer with exhibits), cannot be granted as filed as it

9

does not seek cognizable relief based on clearly identified law. If this is a Motion to Dismiss

10

under Rule 12(b)(6) the Court must accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true for purposes

11
12

of ruling on the Motion. Baker, supra. Mr. Lowndes essentially argues that Plaintiff’s pleaded

13

facts are not true, and that Plaintiff has failed to prove its case at the pleading stage. These are

14

not valid arguments on a Motion to Dismiss and are better saved for a motion for summary

15

judgment or trial. Mr. Lowndes asks that the Court simply point to the First Amendment in

16

dismissing this case, but questions of fact and law remain unanswered. The Court will thus

17
18

deny this Motion.

19

After having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court

20

hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant Bruce Kimberley Lowndes’s “Motion to Dismiss

21
22
23

Lawsuit under the American Constitution Amendment One,” Dkt. #118, is DENIED.
DATED this 31st day of March, 2021.

24
25
26
27

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT B.K. LOWNDES’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
FIRST AMENDMENT - 3