Page:Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra (D. Ariz. 1995).pdf/1

  of the State of Missouri; and the Missouri Supreme Court.

L. Dale Owens and Scott A. Wharton, of Booth, Wade & Campbell, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff and counter-defendant, Urantia Foundation.

Joseph D. Lewis of Cleary & Komen, Washington, DC, for defendant and counter-claimant, Kristen Maaherra.

URBOM, Senior District Judge.

This cause is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Urantia Foundation, contends that the defendant lacks standing to assert any claims based upon the foundation’s alleged violations of its governing declaration of trust.

The Urantia Foundation was established pursuant to a charitable trust and exists under the laws of the State of Illinois. The plaintiff brought this action in part to enjoin the defendant, Kristen Maaherra, from infringing upon its copyright to The Urantia Book and infringing upon its registered trademarks to the name “Urantia” and the three blue concentric circles associated with the foundation. The defendant seeks to justify her actions by claiming that she, and not the Urantia Foundation, is acting in a way required by the foundation's declaration of trust. Furthermore, the defendant initially sought to place the foundation under the supervision of the court and enjoin it from administering the trust in what she believed was an inappropriate manner. The defendant has recently deleted these two prayers for relief from her current answer and counterclaim. See (Revised) Def.’s Substitute and Am. Answer and Countercl. at 20.

When confronted with a motion to dismiss for want of standing, the court must accept each material allegation in the complaint as true and construe the complaint in favor of the complainant. Metropolitan Washington Airports Auth. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501