Evans v. Church of Scientology International et al
| Brian Evans |
| Church of Scientology International, Sky Dayton, Does 1-10 and Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International |
| 1:2026cv20389 |
| January 21, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Beth Bloom |
| Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 17, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 99 Objections to 98 Order on Motion for Leave to File and Notice of On-Going Harm to Plaintiffs Reputation by Brian Evans. (ls) |
Filing 98
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Pro se Plaintiff Brian Evans's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration and Medical Exhibits (the "Motion for Leave"), ECF No. #92 . In the Motion for Leave, Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to file a "Supplemental Declaration and limited medical exhibits in connection with Plaintiff' s pending Motion for Sanctions," indicating that he "seeks only to explain why certain information was omitted from his earlier filing while the Motion for Sanctions remains pending." See ECF No. #92 at 1. Plaintiff requests that the Court exercise its discretion and consider the previously submitted exhibits in light of his medical circumstances, namely his cancer and PTSD diagnoses. See id. at 2-3. Plaintiff explains that these medical conditions affect his memory and concentration, resulting in him forgetting "relevant" facts and inadvertently omitting certain filings he intended to include with his Reply in Support of the Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. #79 . See id at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that the requested supplemental filing is "directly relevant" to the Court's evaluation of the pending Motion for Sanctions because it addresses his "good faith" during the briefing process; explains circumstances regarding his omission of certain information; and provides factual context before the Court rules on the Motion for Sanctions. See id. Plaintiff insists that this "limited information will promote a complete and accurate record without causing unfair prejudice to Defendants" and that his proposed declaration "provides factual context explaining the omission" that will assist the Court while the Motion for Sanctions is pending. See id. at 2-3. In its Response, ECF No. #96 , Defendant Church of Scientology maintains that the Court should deny the Motion for Leave because it is Plaintiff's fourth attempt at supplementing the record. See ECF No. #96 at 1. The Response highlights that Plaintiff includes with the Motion for Leave two exhibits that he previously attached to his Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record with Exhibits Providing Context Regarding Plaintiff's Background, Professional History, Public Advocacy, and Reputational Harm in Support of Reply to Defendant's Opposition for Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (the "First Motion for Leave"), ECF No. #80 ; and a new exhibit consisting of a letter signed by a nurse (after the Motion for Sanctions became ripe), indicating Plaintiff cannot travel. See id. at 1-2. Defendant reiterates that the previously filed proposed exhibits and the new one are irrelevant for deciding the Motion for Sanctions; nothing has changed since the Court's previous Orders denying the prior related motions; and that there is "no good cause to consider [Plaintiff's] medical exhibits this time that did not exist previously." See id. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Reply, ECF No. #97 , wherein he asserts that the Response does not meaningfully address the requested relief. See ECF No. #97 at 1. He explains that the Motion for Leave clarifies that his medical conditions were the basis upon which he seeks relief and that Defendant does not meaningfully dispute those, nor does it explain why Plaintiff's medical conditions do not constitute good cause for the requested relief. See id. at 1-2. Plaintiff disagrees that the Motion for Leave is another attempt to supplement the record, insisting that it explains in the first instance why the omitted information "was not intentionally withheld," and contends he is not attempting to relitigate dismissed claims, introduce new legal theories, or expand the scope of the sanctions motion. See id. at 3. After considering the briefing and the record before it, the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive. While Plaintiff asserts that he wishes only to explain that his medical conditions are the reason he inadvertently omitted the filings he intended to include with his Reply in Support of the Motion for Sanctions, he urges the Court to consider his previously filed exhibits in light of these circumstances. The Court has already ruled on this issue twice before and denied Plaintiff's First Motion for Leave and his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. #90 . See ECF Nos. 89 and 91 . As the Court has previously explained, these extraneous filings are irrelevant to the Court's determination of whether Defendant acted in bad faith - the cornerstone inquiry of the Motion for Sanctions, see ECF Nos. 89 and 91 , so the context Plaintiff hopes to provide with these extraneous filings is wholly irrelevant to determining the merits of the Motion for Sanctions. Accordingly, the Motion for Leave, ECF No. #92 , is DENIED. The Court emphasizes that it will issue a ruling on the Motion for Sanctions in due course and cautions Plaintiff to refrain from filing any subsequent motions, titled differently, that seek to inject the same irrelevant substance upon which the Court has already ruled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on 7/17/2026. (MFE)
|
| Filing 97 REPLY to Response to Motion re #92 MOTION for Leave to File. filed by Brian Evans. (ls) |
| Filing 96 RESPONSE in Opposition re #92 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Church of Scientology International. Replies due by 7/6/2026. (Lazaro, Daniel) |
| Filing 95 NOTICE of Striking #93 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Church of Scientology International by Church of Scientology International (Lazaro, Daniel) |
| Filing 94 REPLY to Response to Motion re #90 MOTION for Reconsideration re 89 Order on Motion for Leave to File. filed by Brian Evans. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(ls) |
| Filing 93 "STRICKEN" RESPONSE in Opposition re #90 MOTION for Reconsideration re 89 Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Church of Scientology International. Replies due by 7/6/2026. (Lazaro, Daniel) Modified on 6/30/2026 (ls). (per DE #95) |
| Filing 92 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration and Medical Exhibits by Brian Evans. Responses due by 7/9/2026. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits A-C)(ls) |
|
Filing 91
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Pro se Plaintiff Brian Evans's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Leave to Supplement Record (the "Motion for Reconsideration"), ECF No. #90 . In the Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order denying his Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record with Exhibits Providing Context Regarding Plaintiff's Background, Professional History, Public Advocacy, and Reputational Harm in Support of Reply to Defendant's Opposition for Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (the "Order"), ECF No. 89 . Plaintiff's main contention is that the Order "overlooks the unique procedural circumstances" giving rise to his request for leave and "results in manifest unfairness." See ECF No. #90 at 1-2. Plaintiff asserts that while responding to his Motion for Sanctions, Defendant attacked his "honesty, credibility, character, criminal history, and reputation" and these "allegations were not peripheral" but used in "attempting to justify its conduct and oppose sanctions." See id. at 2. According to Plaintiff, this is why the exhibits included with his Motion for Leave were necessary; they were not intended to be an unauthorized Sur-reply; and characterizing them as such "overlooks the limited purpose for which he sought leave." See id. at 2-3. Plaintiff also objects to the fact that Defendant was "permitted to place extensive allegations concerning Plaintiff's honesty, credibility, criminal history, and character before the Court while Plaintiff's request for leave to provide a limited response and supporting context has been denied despite Plaintiff's effort to comply with procedural requirements." See id. at 4. A motion for reconsideration must not be used as a mechanism for presenting authorities "available at the time of the first decision or reiterate arguments previously made[.]" Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (citation omitted). Such a motion "is appropriate where the 'Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside of the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension... Such problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.' " See Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (quoting Z.K. Marine Inc., 808 F. Supp. at 1563 (citations omitted)). While Plaintiff is correct that a motion for reconsideration may be appropriate to correct manifest errors, there are no such errors here. He appears to rehash the same arguments presented in his Motion for Leave and still fails to satisfactorily explain why he did not include the proposed exhibits with his Reply in Support of the Motion for Sanctions when he had the opportunity. The Court remains unconvinced that it would benefit from the purported context Plaintiff seeks to provide through the proposed exhibits to decide the issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Moreover, Plaintiff's contention that he "is not a psychic" and "could not know what the Defendants were going to say" has no merit. See ECF No. #90 at 7. Defendant presented arguments and characterizations with its briefing in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. See ECF No. #78 . Plaintiff was entitled to reply to these positions, and indeed did so but omitted the very exhibits he now purports are important in addressing Defendant's arguments and characterizations. It is difficult to find manifest justice where Plaintiff had the opportunity to, but did not, file with his Reply in Support of the Motion for Sanctions the exhibits he now seeks to file. Indeed "reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly." See Burger King Corp, 181 F. Supp. 2d at 1370 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained above, the Court does not find any extraordinary reason to reconsider the Order nor that manifest injustice will result from its refusal. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. #90 , is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on 6/24/2026. (MFE)
|
| Filing 90 MOTION for Reconsideration re 89 Order on Motion for Leave to File, by Brian Evans. Responses due by 6/29/2026. (ls) |
|
Filing 89
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Pro se Plaintiff Brian Evans's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record with Exhibits Providing Context Regarding Plaintiff's Background, Professional History, Public Advocacy, and Reputational Harm in Support of Reply to Defendant's Opposition for Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (the "Motion for Leave"), ECF No. #80 . In the Motion for Leave, Plaintiff seeks to file exhibits to supplement the record with respect to his pending Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1927 and the Court's Inherent Authority (the "Motion for Sanctions"), ECF No. #73 and his Reply in support of his Motion for Sanctions (the "Reply in Support of the Motion for Sanctions"), ECF No. #79 . Plaintiff argues that Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (the "Response to the Motion for Sanctions"), ECF No. #78 , contains repeated attempts to characterize Plaintiff in a negative light through "selective references to unrelated litigation, criminal material, and alleged character-based assertions concerning Plaintiff's 'dishonesty,' 'practice of filing law suits,' and 'propensity for truthfulness.' " See ECF No. #80 at 2. Plaintiff seeks to correct these purported mischaracterizations through filing "limited" exhibits that allegedly provide context regarding, inter alia Plaintiff's personal history, public reputation, charitable activity, entertainment career, and public background. See id. at 3. He also argues that the purpose of filing the proposed exhibits is to "further support" his arguments related to reputational harm suffered as a result of Defendant's dissemination of "prejudicial material." See id. at 4. He also contends that the request to supplement the record is appropriate because Defendants placed Plaintiff's character, reputation, and public history directly at issue through filing "extensive unrelated material and narrative advocacy" into the public docket and that the proposed exhibits would aid the Court in evaluating Plaintiff's arguments regarding reputational harm, deterrence, and impact of the challenged filings. See id. at 7, 8. Plaintiff notes that Defendant would not be prejudiced if the Court allowed him to file the proposed exhibits because it "elected to publicly file extensive extraneous material concerning Plaintiff outside the merits of the dismissed action" and that federal courts have broad discretion to allow record supplementation where it would aid the court in evaluating parties' issues and ensure a complete and fair presentation of the record. See id. at 9, 10. After the Court ordered it to do so, see ECF No. #84 , Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave (the "Response to the Motion for Leave"), ECF No. #85 . In the Response to the Motion for Leave, Defendant argues that the Court should deny the relief because neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules authorize litigants to supplement reply briefs with additional argument after briefing is complete. See ECF No. #85 at 4. Defendant contends that while the Court has inherent discretion to allow moving parties to supplement reply briefs, doing so as a regular practice would cause the Court to deal with endless supplemental filings. See id. at 4. According to Defendant, there is no good cause to supplement the record here because Plaintiff possessed the exhibits at issue well before filing the Reply in Support of the Motion for Sanctions and the Motion for Leave is devoid of any explanation as to why Plaintiff failed to do so. See id. Defendant additionally argues that the proposed exhibits add nothing new to the record, "merely extend the narrative" that Plaintiff set forth in the Motion for Sanctions, and are irrelevant to the issue in the Motion for Sanctions, which is premised on whether Defendant acted in bad faith. See id. Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of his Motion for Leave (the "Reply to the Motion for Leave"), ECF No. #86 , in which he largely reiterates the arguments from the Motion for Leave and further asserts that the proposed exhibits do not introduce a new issue but simply respond to Defendant's allegations. See ECF No. #86 at 2. He asserts that the Court will benefit from additional context "concerning issues Defendant itself placed at issue" and that Defendant's assertions regarding his purported fraud, lying, and criminal history are why supplementation is appropriate. See id. at 2-3. After considering the briefing and the record before it, the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive. First, Plaintiff fails to articulate any explanation as to why he did not file the proposed exhibits with the Reply to the Motion for Sanctions. He injects responses into the Motion for Leave that seem to respond directly to points Defendant raised in the Response to the Motion for Sanctions and could have been included in his Reply to the Motion for Sanctions. See e.g. ECF No. #80 at 7-8 ; ECF No. #86 at 3-5. Indeed, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave is an unauthorized Sur-reply cloaked as a Motion for Leave. Next, the Court agrees with Defendant that the proposed exhibits are unnecessary for determining the central issue in the Motion for Sanctions -- whether Defendant acted in bad faith. Thus, while Plaintiff explains that he seeks to correct Defendant's mischaracterizations, the context he hopes to provide the Court through supplementation is not useful for rendering a determination on the Motion for Sanctions and will serve only to be extraneous filings on the record. Accordingly, the Motion for Leave, ECF No. #80 , is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on 6/12/2026. (MFE)
|
| Filing 88 Defendant's RESPONSE to #87 Notice of Supplemental Authority by Church of Scientology International. (Lazaro, Daniel) |
| Filing 87 Notice of Supplemental Authority in further support re #73 MOTION for Sanctions by Brian Evans (ls) |
| Filing 86 REPLY in Support of Motion re #80 MOTION for Leave to File/Supplement the Record. filed by Brian Evans. (ls) |
| Filing 85 RESPONSE in Opposition re #80 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Church of Scientology International. Replies due by 6/8/2026. (Lazaro, Daniel) |
|
Filing 84
ORDER TO RESPOND re #80 MOTION for Leave to File/Supplement the Record with Exhibits providing context regarding Plaintiff's Background, Professional History, Public Advocacy, and Reputational Harm in support of Reply to Defendants Opposition for Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions. (Responses due by 6/1/2026.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on 5/27/2026. See attached document for full details. (ls)
|
| Filing 83 OBJECTION regarding Defendants False Characterization of Plaintiff as having been "Convicted of Lying" and Further support for #73 MOTION for Sanctions by Brian Evans. (ls) |
| Filing 82 NOTICE of Objection to Email Correspondence Directly to the Court by Brian Evans (ls) |
| Filing 81 NOTICE of Objection and Correction regarding Defendants' False Characterization of Plaintiff as having a "Fraud" Conviction by Brian Evans re #78 Response in Opposition to Motion (ls) |
| Filing 80 MOTION for Leave to File/Supplement the Record with Exhibits providing context regarding Plaintiff's Background, Professional History, Public Advocacy, and Reputational Harm in support of Reply to Defendants Opposition for Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions by Brian Evans. Responses due by 5/26/2026. (ls) |
| Filing 79 REPLY in Support of Motion re #73 MOTION for Sanctions and Supplemental Authority filed by Brian Evans. (ls) |
| Filing 78 RESPONSE in Opposition re #73 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Church of Scientology International. Replies due by 5/15/2026. (Lazaro, Daniel) |
|
Filing 77
ORDER REFERRING #73 MOTION for Sanctions. Motions referred to Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 5/5/2026. See attached document for full details. (ls)
|
|
Filing 76
PAPERLESS ORDER denying #71 Motion MOTION Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Post Dismissal Motion to Strike for failing to comply with Local Rule 7.1 (a)(3). Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (BB)
|
| Filing 75 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE of Supplemental Filing in Support by Brian Evans re #69 Post-Dismissal MOTION to Strike, Seal, or Redact Defamatory and Scandalous Matter. (cds) |
| Filing 74 REPLY in Support of Motion re #69 MOTION to Strike, Seal, or Redact Defamatory and Scandalous Matter filed by Brian Evans. (scn) |
| Filing 73 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927 and the Court's Inherent Authority by Brian Evans. Responses due by 5/8/2026. (scn) |
| Filing 72 Opposition to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice to #71 Defendant's MOTION Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Post Dismissal Motion to Strike re #70 Response in Opposition to Motion by Brian Evans. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(scn) |
| Filing 71 Defendant's MOTION Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Post Dismissal Motion to Strike re #70 Response in Opposition to Motion by Church of Scientology International. Responses due by 5/7/2026. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Evans v. StubHub, #2 Exhibit 2 - Evans v. Cerberus Capital, #3 Exhibit 3 - Evans v. Creative Artists Agency, #4 Exhibit 4 - Hampton Beach Casino, #5 Exhibit 5 - Evans v. City National Bank, #6 Exhibit 6 - Evans v. Hawaiian Electric, #7 Exhibit 7 - Evans v. Fitzgerald, #8 Exhibit 8 - Evans v. InterMiami CF, #9 Exhibit 9 - Evans v. Signature Resolution, #10 Exhibit 10 - Evans v. Signature Resolution, #11 Exhibit 11 - California Felony Docket, #12 Exhibit 12 - Evans' Motion in Limine, #13 Exhibit 13 - Order Granting Dismissal, #14 Exhibit 14 - Evans v. Dickinson Wright, #15 Exhibit 15 - Amended Motion to Dismiss)(Lazaro, Daniel) |
| Filing 70 RESPONSE in Opposition re #69 MOTION to Strike filed by Church of Scientology International. Replies due by 4/30/2026. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Lazaro, Daniel) |
| Filing 69 Post-Dismissal MOTION to Strike, Seal, or Redact Defamatory and Scandalous Matter from the Record by Brian Evans. Responses due by 4/23/2026. (ls) |
|
Filing 68
ORDER of Dismissal Approving #67 Stipulation of Dismissal; Dismissing Case (With Prejudice); Closing Case. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 4/1/2026. See attached document for full details. (ls)
|
| Filing 67 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Sky Dayton (Elegant, Justin) |
| Filing 66 RESPONSE In Opposition to #25 Defendant's MOTION to Quash Service of Process of the Summons and ComplaintMOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint for Lack of Personal JurisdictionMOTION TO DISMISS #1 Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Brian Evans. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(cqs) |
| Filing 65 Defendant's Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement - NONE disclosed by Sky Dayton (Elegant, Justin) |
| Filing 64 REPLY to Response to Motion re #51 MOTION to Strike MOTION Seal MOTION for Sanctions. filed by Brian Evans. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits A and B)(ls) |
| Filing 63 RESPONSE in Opposition re #51 MOTION to Strike MOTION Seal MOTION for Sanctions as to Defamatory Statements Mischaracterizing Plaintiff as a "Convicted Felon" filed by Sky Dayton. Replies due by 4/3/2026. (Elegant, Justin) |
| Filing 62 MOTION to Quash Service of Process of the Summons and Complaint ( Responses due by 4/10/2026.), MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction #49 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, , MOTION TO DISMISS #49 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Upon Which Relief can be Granted by Sky Dayton. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex 1 - Declaration of Sky Dayton ISO Motion to Quash, #2 Exhibit Ex 2 - Rejection of Service of Process dated February 5, 2026, #3 Exhibit Ex 3 - Rejection of Service of Process dated January 30, 2026)(Elegant, Justin) |
| Reset Deadlines Per DE 61 . Joint Scheduling Report due by 4/2/2026 (cqs) |
|
Filing 61
PAPERLESS ORDER: THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On February 4, 2026, the Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Scheduling Report within twenty-one days of an appearance by a Defendant in this case, ECF No. #13 ("Initial Order"). Defendant Church of Scientology International appeared on February 13, 2026. See ECF No. #15 . To date, the parties have not filed a Joint Scheduling Report. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before April 2, 2026, the parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report with this Court, in compliance with this Court's Initial Order. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (ret)
|
| Filing 60 RESPONSE in Opposition re #58 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #49 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, and #51 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, Seal and for Sanctions as to Defamatory Statements filed by Brian Evans. Replies due by 4/2/2026. (ls) |
|
Filing 59
PAPERLESS ORDER: THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Church of Scientology International's Partially Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time, ECF No. #58 ("Motion"). The Motion, ECF No. #58 , is GRANTED. Defendant Church of Scientology International shall file its response to the Amended Complaint and response to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike on or before April 6, 2026. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (ret)
|
| Set Deadlines as to #51 MOTION to Strike MOTION Seal MOTION for Sanctions. Responses due by 4/6/2026. Per DE 59 . (cqs) |
| Reset Answer Due Deadline: Church of Scientology International answer due 4/6/2026. Per DE 59 . (cqs) |
| Filing 58 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #49 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, and #51 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, Seal and for Sanctions as to Defamatory Statements by Church of Scientology International. Responses due by 4/8/2026. (Lazaro, Daniel) |
| Filing 57 Clerk's Notice to Filer re #56 Notice of Attorney Appearance. Attorney Did Not Associate Themselves; ERROR - Filing attorney neglected to associate themselves to the proper filer(s)/case. The Clerk has added the attorney to the proper filer(s)/case. It is not necessary to refile this document. Future filings must comply with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures and Local Rules by filing a Notice of Attorney Appearance and linking themselves to the proper filer(s)/case. (drz) |
| Filing 56 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Daniel R Lazaro on behalf of Church of Scientology International (Lazaro, Daniel) |
| Filing 55 Summons Issued as to Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International. (cds) |
| Filing 54 NOTICE of Potential Conflict Arising From State-Court Lawsuit Against Counsel by Brian Evans (cds) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/23/2026: #1 Exhibit) (cds). |
|
Filing 53
PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot #25 Motion to Quash; denying as moot #25 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying as moot #25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot #25 Motion to Dismiss. See Amended Complaint at ECF No. #49 . Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (BB)
|
|
Filing 52
PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot #33 Motion to Dismiss. See Amended Complaint at ECF No. #49 . Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (BB)
|
| Filing 51 MOTION to Strike ( Responses due by 3/30/2026.), MOTION to Seal, MOTION for Sanctions as to Defamatory Statements Mischaracterizing Plaintiff as a "Convicted Felon" ( Responses due by 3/30/2026.) by Brian Evans. (ls) |
| Filing 50 Clerk's Notice to Filer re #46 Notice of Striking, #45 Notice of Striking,. Incorrect Document Link; ERROR - The filed document was not correctly linked to the related docket entry. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (ls) |
| Filing 49 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Church of Scientology International, Sky Dayton, Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International filed in response to Order Granting Motion for Leave, filed by Brian Evans. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits A-D)(ls) |
| Filing 48 Defendant's Corporate Disclosure Statement by Church of Scientology International (Perlman, Alan) |
| Filing 47 Defendant's REPLY in Support of Motion re #33 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice #1 Complaint . filed by Church of Scientology International. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Perlman, Alan) |
| Filing 46 NOTICE of Striking #41 Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Church of Scientology International, by Church of Scientology International (Vaquerano, Jennifer) Modified document link on 3/16/2026 (ls). |
| Filing 45 NOTICE of Striking #40 Reply in Support of Motion filed by Church of Scientology International by Church of Scientology International (Vaquerano, Jennifer) Modified document link on 3/16/2026 (ls). |
|
Filing 44
PAPERLESS ORDER: THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International for Doe Defendant No. 1, ECF No. #39 ("Motion"). The Court construes this Motion as a request for leave to file an amended complaint to add a defendant. A party may file an amended pleading as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). On February 24, 2026, Defendant Sky Dayton filed a Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b). See ECF No. #25 . Rule 15(a)(1)(B) permits Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 21 days after service of that motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to file an Amended Complaint by March 17, 2026. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (ret)
|
| Filing 43 Clerk's Notice to Filer re #41 Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement. Login/Signature Block Violation; CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED WITHIN 3 DAYS - The name of attorney e-filing this document via their CM/ECF login does not match the name of attorney on the signature block of the document. The name used for login must match typed name on signature block of the document. This filing is a violation of Section 3J(1) of CM/ECF Admin Procedures and LR 5.1(b). Filer must File a Notice of Striking, then refile document pursuant to CM/ECF Admin Procedures and Local Rules. (ls) |
| Filing 42 Clerk's Notice to Filer re #40 Reply in Support of Motion. Login/Signature Block Violation; CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED WITHIN 3 DAYS - The name of attorney e-filing this document via their CM/ECF login does not match the name of attorney on the signature block of the document. The name used for login must match typed name on signature block of the document. This filing is a violation of Section 3J(1) of CM/ECF Admin Procedures and LR 5.1(b). Filer must File a Notice of Striking, then refile document pursuant to CM/ECF Admin Procedures and Local Rules. (ls) |
| Reset Deadlines Per DE 44 . Amended Complaint due by 3/17/2026. (cqs) |
| Filing 41 Defendant's Corporate Disclosure Statement by Church of Scientology International (Vaquerano, Jennifer) |
| Filing 40 REPLY in Support of Motion re #33 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice #1 Complaint . filed by Church of Scientology International. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit "A")(Vaquerano, Jennifer) |
| Filing 39 MOTION to Substitute Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International for Doe Defendant No. 1 by Brian Evans. Responses due by 3/23/2026. (ls) |
| Filing 38 Notice of Supplemental Authority re #33 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice #1 Complaint by Brian Evans (ls) |
| Filing 37 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Brian Evans. (ls) |
|
Filing 36
ORDER denying #34 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 3/5/2026. See attached document for full details. (ls)
|
| Filing 35 RESPONSE in Opposition re #33 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice #1 Complaint filed by Brian Evans. Replies due by 3/12/2026. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits A-C)(ls) |
| Filing 34 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant Sky Dayton's Reply in support of Motion to Quash and Dismiss by Brian Evans. Responses due by 3/18/2026. (ls) |
| Filing 33 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice #1 Complaint by Church of Scientology International. Responses due by 3/18/2026. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Farny Declaration, #2 Exhibit B - Moxon Declaration)(Perlman, Alan) |
| Filing 32 REPLY in Support of Motion re #25 Defendant's MOTION to Quash Service of Process of the Summons and ComplaintMOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint for Lack of Personal JurisdictionMOTION TO DISMISS #1 Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. filed by Sky Dayton. (Elegant, Justin) |
|
Filing 31
PAPERLESS ORDER: THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Seal, ECF No. #23 ("Motion"). Plaintiff's Motion does not establish a sufficient basis to justify sealing information in this case. See Brown v. Advantage Eng'g., Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) ("Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case."); Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 802-03 (11th Cir. 1983) ("[W]here...the [court] attempts to deny access in order to inhibit the disclosure of sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to that interest."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. #23 , is DENIED. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (ret)
|
| Filing 30 SUPPLEMENTAL Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certification to #23 Renewed MOTION to Seal by Brian Evans per Local Rule 5.4. by Brian Evans (ls) |
| Filing 29 RESPONSE in Opposition re #25 Defendant's MOTION to Quash Service of Process of the Summons and ComplaintMOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS #1 Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by Brian Evans. Replies due by 3/4/2026. (ls) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/25/2026: #1 Exhibits A-D) (ls). |
| Filing 28 Clerk's Notice to Filer re #25 Defendant's MOTION to Quash Service of Process of the Summons and Complaint, to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can be Granted,. Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR - The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (ls) |
|
Filing 27
PAPERLESS ORDER granting #24 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorney Michael H. Strub, Jr. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (ret)
|
| Filing 26 Statement of: Declaration by Sky Dayton re #25 Defendant's MOTION to Quash Service of Process of the Summons and Complaint, to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can be Granted, (Elegant, Justin) |
| Filing 25 Defendant's MOTION to Quash Service of Process of the Summons and Complaint by Sky Dayton. Responses due by 3/10/2026. (Attachments: #1 2026.02.05 Rejection of Service of Process, #2 2026.01.30 Rejection of Service)(Elegant, Justin). Added MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, MOTION TO DISMISS #1 Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on 2/25/2026 (ls). |
| Filing 24 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Michael H. Strub, Jr.. Filing Fee $ 250.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-19250075 by Sky Dayton. Attorney Justin B. Elegant added to party Sky Dayton(pty:dft). Responses due by 3/10/2026. (Attachments: #1 Certification Certification of Michael H. Strub, Jr., #2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion to Appeal Pro Hac Vice)(Elegant, Justin) |
| Filing 23 RENEWED MOTION to Seal by Brian Evans Responses due by 3/6/2026. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (cds) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/24/2026: #2 Exhibit B) (cds). |
| Filing 22 NOTICE Regarding Character-Based Rhetoric and Judicially Noticeable Public Record by Brian Evans. (scn) |
| Filing 21 Clerk's Notice Re Proposed Sealed Material Not Accepted for Filing. Sealed document returned to Plaintiff. See Local Rule 5.4 for sealed procedures. (kpe) |
|
Filing 20
PAPERLESS ORDER denying #19 Motion to Seal for failing to comply with Local Rule 7.1 (a)(3). Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (BB)
|
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jennifer Julia Vaquerano on behalf of Church of Scientology International (Vaquerano, Jennifer) |
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Alan J. Perlman on behalf of Church of Scientology International. Attorney Alan J. Perlman added to party Church of Scientology International(pty:dft). (Perlman, Alan) |
| Filing 19 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL FILING CONFIRMING SERVICE AND MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT A by Brian Evans. Responses due by 3/3/2026. (amb) |
|
Filing 16
PAPERLESS ORDER granting #15 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to the Complaint by March 4, 2026. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (BB)
|
| Filing 15 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time Extension of 14 days to respond to Complaint by Church of Scientology International. Attorney Jennifer Julia Vaquerano added to party Church of Scientology International(pty:dft). Responses due by 2/27/2026. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Vaquerano, Jennifer) |
| Reset Answer Due Deadline: Church of Scientology International answer due 3/4/2026. Per DE 16 . (cqs) |
| Filing 14 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. Sky Dayton served on 2/3/2026, response/answer due 2/24/2026. (scn) |
|
Filing 13
Order Requiring Scheduling Report and Certificates of Interested Parties. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 2/4/2026. See attached document for full details. (ls)
|
| Filing 12 Judge Assignment to Judge Beth Bloom and Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis Per DE 11 . (cqs) |
|
Filing 11
PAPERLESS ORDER Directing Clerk to Reassign Case to District Judge. A party has objected to the assignment of a Magistrate Judge to preside over this case. See (ECF No. #7 ). I therefore ORDER the Clerk of Court to randomly reassign this case to a United States District Judge, keeping the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case in accordance with Administrative Order 2025-11. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis on 2/3/2026. (sag)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Compliance #9 Order Mailed. (cqs) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER of Instructions to Pro Se Litigants. The Clerk of Court is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff's address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis on 2/3/2026. See attached document for full details. (sag)
|
| Filing 8 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Brian Evans. Church of Scientology International served on 1/28/2026, answer due 2/18/2026. (ls) |
| Filing 7 Plaintiff's Notice of NON-CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. Filed by Brian Evans (pc) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint with a 21 day answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Brian Evans. Church of Scientology International served on 1/28/2026, answer due 2/18/2026. (cqs) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Sky Dayton. (drz) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Church of Scientology International. (drz) |
| Filing 3 Clerks Notice of Receipt of Filing Fee received on 1/20/2026 in the amount of $ 405.00, receipt number FLS312981. (vt) |
| Filing 2 Judge Assignment to Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis (drz) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Church of Scientology International, Sky Dayton, Does 1-10. Filing fees $ 405.00 paid (sent in mail to Miami), filed by Brian Evans. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(drz) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
