[Magdalen] Federal appeal ruling in favor of SC Bp vonRosenbert

[Ginga Wilder]

Good News for Episcopalians.  Ginga


http://www.episcopalchurchsc.org/news-release-march-31-2015.html



*Appeals court remands federal lawsuit*

*March 31, 2015*

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today ruled in favor of
attorneys for Bishop Charles G. vonRosenberg of The Episcopal Church in
South Carolina, and sent *vonRosenberg v. Lawrence *back to U.S. District
Court in Charleston for another hearing.

The ruling came in a published opinion
<http://www.episcopalchurchsc.org/uploads/1/2/9/8/12989303/4th_circuit_order_-_vacating_and_remanding_-_vonrosenberg.pdf>
from
Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, the head of the three-judge panel that heard the
case on January 28 in Richmond, Va. A published opinion means that it has
value as precedent in future federal cases, according to Thomas S. Tisdale
Jr., Chancellor of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, who presented
oral arguments before the panel in January.

The appeal focused on the issue of false advertising under the federal
Lanham Act. Bishop vonRosenberg is the only bishop recognized by The
Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as bishop of the Diocese of
South Carolina. Mark Lawrence, by continuing to represent himself as bishop
of the diocese, is committing false advertising, according to a brief filed
with the appeals court in 2014. The suit seeks an injunction against Bishop
Lawrence.

The federal lawsuit was filed in March 2013, a few months after Bishop
Lawrence announced he had left The Episcopal Church and subsequently was
removed as a bishop of the church. In August 2013, U.S. District Judge C.
Weston Houck granted Bishop Lawrence’s motion to abstain from the case,
citing the fact that another lawsuit arising from the schism was also
pending in state court, filed by the breakaway group.

Today’s ruling found that Judge Houck erred by applying the wrong legal
standard in his decision to abstain when he cited the *Brillhart v. Excess
Insurance Co. of America *and *Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.* decisions. Bishop
vonRosenberg’s appeal contended that the judge should have followed the
principles set forth in the*Colorado River Water Conservation District v.
United States* decision, which says the court may abstain only in
“exceptional” circumstances.

“Nothing in the record in this case indicates that Bishop vonRosenberg's
request for injunctive relief is frivolous or designed to avoid application
of the*Brillhart/Wilton* standard. Accordingly, the *Colorado River* standard
governs the abstention question here,” Judge Motz wrote.

The ruling sends the case back to U.S. District Court in Charleston for a
hearing on whether such “exceptional” circumstances are present in the case
under the*Colorado River *standard. If not, then the U.S. District Court
would be expected to hear the case on its merits.



Read more here:
http://www.episcopalchurchsc.org/legal-news.html