Judge John Curtin
The Dimonds operate the Most Holy Family Monastery. (MHFM). Hoyle's 2009 amended complaint asserted claims grounded on their misrepresentations they were affiliated with the Order of St. Benedict and could instruct him to become a Benedictine monk. On March 19, 2013, the court held Hoyle's claims required examination of doctrinal issues prohibited by the First Amendment. However, it granted him judgment on the Dimonds' counterclaims asserting violations of the Lanham Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Citing Berman v. Parco and Lyondell-Citgo Ref. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, the court denied Hoyle's motion to amend his complaint to reassert claims of fraud, constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment/constructive fraud, mandatory accounting, money had and received, and deceptive trade practices grounded on defendants' misrepresentation of intent to return a portion of Hoyle's donations if he left MHFM. Hoyle knew of the alleged agreement when he filed his original complaint. Hoyle offered no reason for his motion's inexcusable delay. In the five years since his original complaint, discovery has closed and the court dismissed the complaint on the Dimonds' motion for summary judgment.
