Page:Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra (D. Ariz. 1995).pdf/8



L. Dale Owens and Scott A. Wharton, of Booth, Wade & Campbell, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff.

Joseph D. Lewis, of Cleary & Komen, Washington, DC, for defendant.

URBOM, Senior District Judge.

This cause is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Urantia Foundation, asserts that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–2000bb-4 (Supp. V 1993) is not applicable to the instant case and does not afford the defendant, Kristen Maaherra, a proper basis for an affirmative defense.

The plaintiff initially brought this action to enjoin the defendant from, among other things, infringing upon its copyright to The Urantia Book and infringing upon its registered trademarks to the name “Urantia” and the three concentric circles associated with the Urantia Foundation. The defendant seeks to avoid the plaintiff’s claims in part by relying on the RFRA as a defense. In particular, the defendant states that the court’s enforcement of either the copyright or trademarks “would substantially burden Defendant’s exercise of her religion in violation of the [RFRA].” ((Revised) Def.’s Substitute 2nd Am. Answer & Countercl. at 5, ¶3.)

The standard applied to a motion for partial summary judgment is identical to the standard applied to adjudicate a case fully by summary judgment. The motion shall be granted when, viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and … the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 56(c); Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 532 F.2d 674, 683 (9th Cir.), ''cert. denied'', 429 U.S.