The lawsuit names Kanakuk, its CEO Joe White and Newman as defendants:
Though plaintiffs generally allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to each of their claims occurred in the state of Texas, their pleadings do not support those allegations. Instead, the only venue facts alleged by plaintiffs are that one or more of the Defendants mailed letters and advertisements to Texas, that Defendants provided transportation to Missouri for campers from Texas, and that Defendant Joe White gave one presentation at a religious event in Texas. Because the Defendants and Newman are citizens and residents of Missouri and the alleged actions giving rise to this case occurred in Branson, Missouri at Kanakuk Kamps, the Western District of Missouri – Southern Division is the only proper venue for this action.
Kanakuk attorneys claim that the only connections to Dallas mentioned by the plaintiff's lawyers are the fact that he became interested ijn Kanakuk after White made a speech at a Promise Keepers rally in Dallas, and solicitations to attend the camp were sent to Texas addresses. It notes that Newman's sexual violation of the youth is alleged to have taken place in Missouri.
Newman is serving two life sentences, plus 30 years, in prison for sexual crimes involving underage boys.
You know what's weird? It was convenient for Joe White to be in Dallas literally every other week before this suit was filed in Dallas. C'mon, Joe. You're from the same county as the victim. You went to SMU. Your Kanakuk charter buses depart from a parking lot at Northpark Mall. I bet the flight records on your jet would show just how often you were able to be in town...until NOW. Gosh, Joe even took road trips down to visit victims, and brought his grandkids with him. What percentage of your consumers, oops, I mean kampers hail from Texas? Dallas? If we're good enough to present a sales pitch, it seems like our federal court would be a fair place to let the truth come out.
ReplyDeleteI looked...no where in the Bible did Jesus try to wiggle into a more convenitent court.
Certainly this is a winning motion as to Joe, probably isn't as good re: Kanakuk's corporate entities, but not actionable under rule 11, and more than likely a 50/50 tossup. Keep in mind the plaintiffs are from the Amarillo area, it's just the PLAINTIFFS LAWYERS who want this in dallas to pick up the maximum fee
ReplyDelete28 USC 1391
(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
(c) For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. In a State which has more than one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant contacts.
Translation, please, Ross, for the uncleaned masses.
ReplyDeleteTranslation: Kanakuk is totally entitled to file this motion. The Plaintiffs, who are from near Amarillo, are 6 hours from Dallas and 8 hours from Springfield. The witnesses and places of interest are all in Missouri. Because Joe gives a talk at Promise Keepers in Dallas does not make venue lie in Dallas for sexual misconduct by your employee.
ReplyDeleteThere are some technical reasons why this could fail, but the point is, it was filed in Dallas because the victims' lawyer is in Dallas, but Dallas has less than nothing to do with this suit, and either forum will give the parties a fair trial.
Ross, don't be shocked when victims FROM Dallas file. There are several. Some families are just now coming to grips with what has happened, and are trying to figure out what to do. Some of the victims are no longer minors, so it's their decision to make. There is more going on than just one victim with one attorney.
ReplyDelete"Just now coming to grips." Many find themselves in that place. Kanakuk and it's leadership would do THEMSELVES the greatest favor by publicly owning their responsibility in this. Admitting to negligence which led to this. Acknowledge all the pain and suffering they have indirectly caused. Apologize for their part. Give people back the $ they've spent at Kanakuk over the years. Pay for their counseling. Just apologize. It's the same thing we must do to God for our sin. We MUST acknowledge that we are sinners. They, too, MUST acknowledge to families where they failed. IF THEY WOULD, many of these current suits and coming suits would not happen. The more they refuse to admit, acknowledge, own up....the worse people are going to make them pay. Hypocrisy is costly. I hope they have great insurance so that camp doesn't have to come to an end.
ReplyDeleteSo 6:15, you're saying that good will be done and justice will be served as long as an insurance company pays the affected families off?
ReplyDeleteSo in your thinking, incompetent management should be allowed to stay in their revered positions, making decisions every day that affect kids, as long as the buck is passed to the insurance company.
I couldn't disagree more.
Ross - Didn't you get the memo? How dare you use facts and logic on the internet!
ReplyDelete