Overview of the Metaphysical Lawsuit
What “metaphysical lawsuit” refers to
The term “metaphysical lawsuit” refers to several legal cases between the University of Metaphysical Sciences (UMS) and the International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM). IMM operates two other spiritual schools: the University of Metaphysics and the University of Sedona. These lawsuits mainly involved trademark and online advertising disputes, not criminal or academic matters.
Why the topic gained attention online
In late 2024, many online searches and copied articles began repeating false claims about the case. Some sites suggested that UMS had lost lawsuits or was facing ongoing legal issues. In fact, public court records show that all cases were dismissed, with no liability, fines, or settlements. The wave of false content spread confusion about what actually happened.
Summary of the universities involved
Both UMS and IMM are organizations that teach metaphysical and spiritual subjects.
- University of Metaphysical Sciences (UMS) is based in California and operated by Wisdom of the Heart Church, a nonprofit religious organization founded by Christine Breese.
- International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM) runs the University of Metaphysics and the University of Sedona, both located in Arizona.
The disputes arose from how the two organizations used related terms in marketing and search results.
About the University of Metaphysical Sciences
Founding year and purpose
The University of Metaphysical Sciences was founded in 2004 by Christine Breese. Its goal is to offer spiritual and metaphysical education to students worldwide. It provides courses in meditation, spiritual counseling, and consciousness studies.
Nonprofit and religious-exempt status
UMS operates as a religious-exempt nonprofit institution through Wisdom of the Heart Church, a registered 501(c)(3) organization. This means it is legally recognized as a religious educational body and does not rely on government student loan programs.
Accreditation details from verifiable sources
According to the university’s official site and professional directories, UMS holds approval from the American Alternative Medical Association (AAMA) and the American Association of Drugless Practitioners (AADP). These associations support schools in holistic and alternative education fields. UMS is also registered with the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) as a religious-exempt institution.
Who Filed the Lawsuit and Why
The plaintiff: International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM)
Public records show that the International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM) filed all lawsuits against UMS. IMM is a nonprofit organization based in Sedona, Arizona, and operates two educational branches: the University of Metaphysics and the University of Sedona.
Connection between IMM, University of Metaphysics, and University of Sedona
Both the University of Metaphysics and the University of Sedona are part of IMM’s network. They offer spiritual degree programs similar in subject to UMS, such as metaphysical philosophy, counseling, and ministry. This overlap contributed to the legal tension between the two entities.
Claimed reasons for filing the lawsuit
IMM claimed that UMS used certain online terms or advertising keywords that might have caused confusion between the schools. These claims were related to Google Ads and trademark use. UMS provided records showing that it had not run the disputed ads, and the courts later confirmed dismissal of all related claims.
Timeline of the University of Metaphysical Sciences Lawsuit
The First Case (2017): Initial Filing and Dismissal
The first case began in December 2017 when the International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Arizona under Case No. 3:17-cv-08280-JJT. The case was titled International Metaphysical Ministry, Inc. v. Schaefer et al., naming people connected to the University of Metaphysical Sciences (UMS).
IMM’s main complaint: it claimed that UMS’s online presence and advertisements could confuse people into thinking UMS was connected to IMM’s own schools, the University of Sedona and the University of Metaphysics. IMM asked the court to block UMS from running certain ads and even requested that UMS’s websites be taken down.
UMS’s response: UMS denied the claims and presented its Google Ads data to show that the accused ads did not exist. The reports indicated that no campaigns had ever used IMM’s trademarks or names.
Court outcome: The Arizona court refused to issue the restrictions IMM wanted. Later, the case was transferred to California, where the same arguments were reviewed. The California court also found no violation or proof of wrongdoing.
The case was dismissed. No trial or hearing ever happened. No money changed hands. There were no court orders against UMS.
The university continued operating normally. Students kept attending classes, and faculty work went on without pause.
The Second Case (2018): Trademark respect agreement
In 2018, IMM filed another case in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:18-cv-04524). The claim again centered around trademarks and advertising keywords.
Both sides decided that continued litigation would only waste time and resources. UMS proposed a simple, written agreement where both institutions promised to respect each other’s trademarks and avoid confusion. IMM agreed.
This written agreement was sometimes mistaken online as a “settlement,” but it was not. It contained no payments, no admissions of guilt, and no court orders. It was just a professional agreement between two organizations.
The court closed the case after the agreement was signed in 2019.
Both parties continued to run their schools independently. UMS described the agreement as an act of cooperation rather than conflict.
The Third Case (2021–2025): Final dismissal with prejudice
The final case, filed in late 2021, was International Metaphysical Ministry et al. v. Wisdom of the Heart Church (Case No. 4:21-cv-08066-KAW). Once again, the plaintiff was IMM, operating the University of Sedona and University of Metaphysics. The defendant, Wisdom of the Heart Church, is the parent nonprofit organization of UMS.
IMM’s claim: IMM accused UMS of running Google Ads that used similar keywords to IMM’s schools, allegedly leading to brand confusion.
UMS’s response: UMS provided its complete advertising records from Google Ads, proving that no such campaigns had ever been created. The evidence included account histories that showed no keywords, ads, or targeting related to IMM’s trademarks.
Legal progression: During 2023 and 2024, both sides filed motions and evidence. Judges reviewed all submissions and found that IMM had no verifiable proof to support its claims. UMS’s evidence showed the disputed ads did not exist and that the school followed all advertising rules.
By early 2024, parts of the case were dismissed through summary-judgment rulings, meaning the judge found there were no factual issues requiring a trial.
Finally, on May 12, 2025, the court dismissed the entire lawsuit with prejudice, which permanently closed the matter.
Outcome:
- No hearings or witness testimonies occurred.
- No damages or settlements were paid.
- The court confirmed that the issues could not be refiled again.
After the dismissal, UMS continued operating as usual. The ruling gave the university complete closure after almost eight years of intermittent litigation.
Court Findings and Legal Results
No hearings or trials held
Across all three filings, there were no court hearings, no live testimony, and no trials. The matters were decided based on written motions and evidence.
Summary-judgment rulings and dismissals
The courts found no actionable proof against UMS. Each case ended in dismissal, and the final one was dismissed with prejudice. This confirmed that the issues could not be refiled in court.
Explanation of “dismissed with prejudice” in plain language
“Dismissed with prejudice” means the case is finished for good. The same claims cannot be brought back. It does not mean wrongdoing; it simply means the matter is legally closed.
How the Lawsuit Affected the University
Continuation of classes and programs
Classes, student services, and graduation ceremonies continued throughout all three lawsuits. No programs were canceled.
No disruption to operations or degrees
The university’s staff, faculty, and students kept working normally. No licenses or accreditations were suspended. The lawsuits had no effect on degrees already granted.
Ongoing recognition and standing
UMS remains registered as a religious-exempt educational institution and continues to be recognized by the AAMA and AADP.
Online Confusion and False Information
The rise of misleading search results and copy-paste articles
Around September 2024, search engines were flooded with phrases like “university of metaphysical sciences lawsuit update.” Many pages repeated the same false or outdated information without citing sources.
Why misinformation spread online
Digital content tools and AI summarizers copied earlier misinformation, creating a false impression that the lawsuit was ongoing or that UMS was found guilty. These claims were never true according to official court records.
How to verify facts through public court dockets
Anyone can verify the outcomes by checking the United States District Court docket records on sites like law.justia.com or PACER. Each record confirms that the cases were dismissed.
Public Transparency and Legal Clarity
Why the university published official records
After years of silence, UMS decided to publish a verified summary of the lawsuits in 2025. The reason was simple: misinformation was spreading faster than official documents. By releasing public records and factual timelines, the university aimed to ensure that students, graduates, and the public had access to accurate information. This release included court docket numbers, filing dates, and final outcomes.
Importance of accurate data in digital media
In the digital age, misinformation can damage credibility even after a case is resolved. When false information spreads unchecked, it can stay visible in search results for years. By publishing factual data, UMS helped search engines and readers connect to verified records instead of rumors.
Ethical importance of transparency in metaphysical education
Spiritual education often focuses on honesty and personal integrity. In this field, transparency is not just a legal duty but a moral one. By addressing the lawsuits openly, UMS set a precedent for how schools in similar areas can handle public confusion responsibly.
Transparency helps prevent misunderstanding, builds trust between institutions and students, and protects the reputation of genuine educational work.
Broader Context of the Metaphysical Lawsuit
What this case means for spiritual and metaphysical schools
The case highlights how institutions in similar spiritual or educational spaces can sometimes overlap in terms of trademarks or online visibility. Clear agreements help prevent such disputes.
The balance between free belief and legal protection
Spiritual education often works outside traditional academic systems. This makes it important for schools to maintain legal clarity while respecting freedom of belief.
Lessons for similar institutions
Other metaphysical schools can learn the value of proper documentation, transparent communication, and cooperation rather than competition.
Key Facts at a Glance
- Number of lawsuits: Three (2017, 2018, 2021)
- Outcome: All dismissed
- Final ruling: Dismissed with prejudice, May 12, 2025
- Fault or liability: None
- Financial settlements: None
- Ongoing cases: None