Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 9

1 S. BRENT VOGEL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nevada Bar No. 006858 E-Mail: Brent.Vogel@lewisbrisbois.com ALAYNE M. OPIE Nevada Bar No. 012623 E-Mail: Alayne.Opie@lewisbrisbois.com LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 702.893.3383 FAX: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Narconon Fresh Start dba Rainbow Canyon Retreat UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

CATHY TARR, a Virginia Citizen; and 12 MICHAEL TARR, a Florida Citizen,

CASE NO. 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

13 14
vs.

Plaintiffs,

15 NARCONON FRESH START d/b/a 17 18 19

Defendants.

RAINBOW CANYON RETREAT; and DOES 16 1-100, ROE Corporations I-X, inclusive,

Defendant, NARCONON FRESH START dba RAINBOW CANYON RETREAT

20 (Narconon), by and through its counsel Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, hereby moves to 21 dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 8(a)(2), and 8(d), or alternatively 22 moves to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) or for a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 12(e). 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / /
4829-6789-0458.1

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 9

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

This Motion is based upon the papers and pleadings on file, the Memorandum of Points and

2 Authorities submitted herewith and any argument allowed at the time of any hearing on this matter.
DATED this 8th day of April, 2014 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP

By

/s/ Alayne Opie S. BRENT VOGEL Nevada Bar No. 006858 ALAYNE M. OPIE Nevada Bar No. 012623 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION On February 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their lengthy Complaint. This Complaint consists of

15 over 100 paragraphs, nearly 120 pages including exhibits, a full deposition transcript from a distinctly 16 separate lawsuit filed in Dekale County, Georgia, numerous conclusory statements, prolonged 17 unnecessary quotes from books, scientific opinions, etc. The Complaint is argumentative, prolix, 18 largely irrelevant, and is not simple, concise, and direct as required by Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure (Rule) 8(d). Dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to 20 adhere to the Rules is proper. 21
Alternatively, should this Court not dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety for blatantly

22 failing to adhere to the Rules, Narconon requests that this Court strike Plaintiffs Complaint in full or 23 the Factual Allegations section contained therein as it contains redundant, immaterial, impertinent, 24 and scandalous matter. Doc 1 at 6-88, 92, 97; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). If the Court chooses not to 25 strike the entire Complaint but chooses to strike the Factual Allegations section, the portions of 26 Plaintiffs Complaint that would remain contain sufficient information to guide discovery without the 27 superfluous rambling. Alternatively, should this Court not dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety, 28 or strike the Complaint or Factual Allegations contained therein, Narconon requests that this Court
4829-6789-0458.1 2

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 3 of 9

1 order Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement in conformity with the Rules. As is, Plaintiffs 2 Complaint fails to provide Narconon with a fair opportunity to frame a responsive pleading. 3 4
II. FACTS Narconon, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program, is being accused of indoctrinating the

5 Church of Scientology in lieu of providing drug and alcohol counseling to its students. Plaintiffs 6 counsel, Ryan Hamilton, specifically advertises to former Narconon students, alleging that Narconon 7 uses a bait and switch tactic to pray on families in their time of need. See www.hamlegal.com. As 8 of todays date, Mr. Hamiltons has filed no less than four lawsuits against Narconon on behalf of 9 former students. 10
On February 24, 2014, Plaintiffs, by and through Mr. Hamilton, filed their Complaint. Doc. 1.

11 Plaintiffs causes of action against Narconon are basic; Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, fraud, and 12 negligence. These causes of action are sufficiently plead in Plaintiffs Complaint in paragraphs 1-5, 13 89-91, 93-96, and 98-100 alone. The remaining paragraphs contained within Plaintiffs Complaint are 14 superfluous language intended to paint Narconon in a poor light to the Court, the general public, and 15 to garner media attention. 16
In an attempt to prepare an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, Narconons counsel reviewed it

17 along with the attachments. Several hours were required to read Plaintiffs Complaint and the 18 extensive exhibits attached. The Ninth Circuit has stated, a cause of action [should] be read and 19 answered in minutes. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). This was clearly not 20 possible here. Plaintiffs Complaint violates the Rules and relief is warranted. 21 22 A. 23 24
III. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs Complaint Does Not Comport With the Rules, Is Intended To Generate Media Attention, Contains Improper Allegations, and Should Be Dismissed Rule 41(b) allows the Court to dismiss an action for failure to comply with the Rules.

25 Plaintiffs Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 which requires Plaintiffs to plead a short and plain 26 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and each allegation must be 27 simple, concise, and direct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 8(d) (emphasis added). Where the 28 allegations in a complaint are argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy and largely irrelevant,
4829-6789-0458.1 3

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 4 of 9

1 the complaint is properly dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8. McHenry at 1177; see also Nevijel 2 v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming dismissal of complaint that 3 was verbose, confusing and almost entirely conclusory.) Furthermore, a complaint that fails to 4 comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed with prejudice. Nevijel at 673. 5
Courts regularly reject pleadings that amount to prolix diatribes through which the Court and

6 the defendants must wade to ascertain the relevant allegations. Nevijel (affirming dismissal of 7 amended complaint consisting of 23 pages of verbose and conclusory averments); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. 8 Co., 758 F. 2d 409, 415 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1021 (1985) (affirming dismissal under Rule 8 of 9 confusing and conclusory complaint which exceeded 70 pages in length including exhibits); Carrigan v. 10 Calif. State Legislature, 263 F.2d 560, 566-67 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 980 (1959) (186-page 11 complaint describing plaintiffs thoughts, worries, hearsay conversations, and difficulties and 12 frustrations with doctors, the insurance company, and most everyone else with whom she was in 13 contact violated Rule 8(a)); Perez v. Barzak, 57 F.R.D. 149, 150 (S.D.N.Y.) (Complaints which 14 ramble, which needlessly speculate, accuse, and condemn, and which contain circuitous diatribes far 15 removed from the heart of the claim do not comport with these goals [short and plain] and this 16 system; such complaints must be dismissed.); Kass v. Mineral County Comrs, 2009 WL 103598 at *2 (D. 17 Nev. 2009)(dismissing a complaint containing long narrative as violating Rule 8); Jaconson v. 18 Schwarzenegger, 226 F.R.D. 395, 397-98 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (dismissing complaint consisting of long 19 winded diatribes, historical narratives, legal arguments, and excerpts from newspaper articles and web 20 sites). Plaintiffs Complaint is a textbook violation of Rule 8 and the Complaint should be dismissed. 21
Rule 9(b) requires that in alleging fraud, as Plaintiffs are, a party must state with

22 particularity the circumstances constituting fraud Fed. R. Civ. P. 9. Malice, intent, knowledge, 23 and other conditions of a persons mind may be alleged generally. Id. Therefore, in their pleadings, 24 Plaintiffs must include the time, place, and manner of the alleged fraud. Lancaster Com. Hosp. v. 25 Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F. 2d 397, 405 (9th Cir. 1991). The allegations must be specific enough 26 to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute fraud charged so 27 that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong. 28 Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985). However, alleging fraud does not open the
4829-6789-0458.1 4

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 5 of 9

1 flood gates and allow Plaintiffs to ramble incoherently paragraph after paragraph in their Complaint. 2 Including an allegation of fraud in ones Complaint does not defeat the requirements under Rule 8 3 and does not constitute as a pass in allowing Plaintiffs to include hearsay, irrelevant context, 4 scientific conclusions, deposition testimony, and conclusory statements, among other defective 5 paragraphs in Plaintiffs Complaint. 6
The drafters of the Rules provided an official Appendix of Forms intended to indicate the

7 simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate. McHenry at 1176. The Ninth 8 Circuit found the form complaint in the Appendix to be dramatically short and plain. Id. It 9 examined the negligence form complaint in the Appendix, finding it sets forth who is being sued, for 10 what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery. It can be read and answered in 11 minutes. Id. at 1177 (citing Fed R. Civ. P. Form 9) (emphasis added). On the other hand, long12 winded complaints like Plaintiffs Complaint, impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges. Id. at 13 1179. The purpose of Rule 8 is to provide a defendant with notice of Plaintiffs claims so that the 14 defendant has a fair opportunity to frame a responsive pleading. Id. at 1174 (citing Ferm v. McCarty, 15 2013 WL 800536 at *2 (D. Nev. 2013)). Lengthy immaterial, inflammatory, and superfluous 16 opinions and editorial comments do not comport with Rule 8. Ferm at *2. 17
Plaintiffs Complaint begins with a three page section titled, Michaels Entry Into The

18 Narconon Program, wherein Plaintiffs describe Cathy Tarrs web-browsing history, her sons heroin 19 addiction, the source of Plaintiffs funding for the Narconon program, and Michel Tarrs alleged first 20 few days at Narconon. Doc. 1 at 6-20. This section is littered with hearsay, contains information 21 that fails to support any of Plaintiffs causes of action, is plagued with Plaintiffs opinions and 22 provides conclusory statements among other allegations that are so poorly worded that they do not 23 afford Narconon an opportunity to adequately respond. 24
After reviewing only the first section of Plaintiffs Factual Allegations, one could be duped

25 into believing discovery had already opened. And yet, the verbose, argumentative, and irrelevant 26 information continues. The second section of Plaintiffs Complaint, titled The Narconon Program 27 consists of almost seven full pages wherein Plaintiffs provide editorial comments regarding 28 Narconons (i) Course Material and (ii) Sauna Program/New Life Detoxification Program. Doc.
4829-6789-0458.1 5

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 6 of 9

1 1 at 21-54. Plaintiffs rendition of the Narconon program is a mischaracterization, adds nothing of 2 value to Plaintiffs Complaint, and appears to be drafted in hopes of garnering additional media 3 attention. 4
Plaintiffs go on for several paragraphs quoting what Plaintiffs believe to be concept[s] found

5 early on in Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought and describing Training Routines (TRs) 6 that [Plaintiffs claim] Narconon asserts teach students valuable lessons. Doc. 1 at 24, 22. None of 7 this supposed scholastic information is relevant to Plaintiffs claim that Narconon breached a 8 contract, committed fraud, or acted negligently. It is immaterial and improper. 9
Among Plaintiffs multiple conclusory statements within this section of Plaintiffs Complaint

10 are scientific conclusions, alleged expert testimony, and large citations to a deposition transcript 11 from an unrelated case in Georgia. This section also provides improper editorial comments intended 12 to inflame the public. 13
Plaintiffs next section titled, Narconons Fraudulent Business Practices, is also improper.

14 Doc. 1 at 55-67. Everything that Plaintiffs needed to plead in order to sufficiently state a cause of 15 action for fraud is contained within paragraphs 93-96. As stated above, alleging fraud is not an 16 invitation for Plaintiffs to freely include the kitchen sink in their Complaint. There is no legal 17 justification for the lengthy diatribe Plaintiffs recite in their Complaint. Plaintiffs not only reference 18 alleged facts concerning the case at hand, but go as far as making blanket statements about 19 Narconons interactions with other prospective patients and their families. Doc. 1 at 55. These 20 allegations are not relevant to whether Narconon made false representations to Cathy and/or Michel 21 Tarr and should not have been contained within the Complaint. Their paragraphs are arguments, not 22 simple and concise allegations as required by the Rules. Furthermore, Plaintiffs improperly cite to 23 books in their Complaint. 24
Next, Plaintiffs dedicate two pages detailing what can only reasonably be considered more

25 editorial comment under the title, Connection to the Church of Scientology. If Plaintiffs intent 26 was to plead facts sufficient to support their fraud claim, they have done so in paragraphs 93-96. 27 None of the allegations contained within this section are necessary or proper. Plaintiffs go as far as 28 stating Narconon has prominent members of the Church of Scientology, such as Kristie Alley, John
4829-6789-0458.1 6

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 7 of 9

1 Travolta, and Tom Cruise Doc. 1 at 76. The sole purpose of this paragraph and entire section 2 is to draw the publics attention to Plaintiffs Complaint and generate media attention. 3
Last, Plaintiffs set out their alleged damages in unnecessarily explicit detail. Plaintiffs section

4 titled, Harm to Plaintiffs is summed up and sufficiently stated in paragraphs 91, 96, and 100. 5 Plaintiffs inclusion of Narconons alleged explanation of how Michael caught a cold, Michael 6 remaining at Narconon after graduating the program, his relapse, and overdose are facts that are 7 improperly plead and designed to generate media attention. 8
In filing this Motion, Narconon has not attempted to set out in detail each and every way

9 Plaintiffs Complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 8(d) and 9(b). To 10 do so would be redundant and unnecessary. Plaintiffs Complaint goes far beyond what is required 11 and permitted under Rule 8 and 9. Only after substantial discovery would Narconon be able to weed 12 through each of Plaintiffs paragraphs to conclude which paragraphs truly are in issue and relevant to 13 Plaintiffs causes of action. A cursory review of Plaintiffs Complaint reveals the most glaring issues 14 contained within it and shows its obvious violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15
Plaintiffs counsel has not only filed the instant Complaint, but others similar to it on behalf of

16 other Plaintiffs. As it appears to be Plaintiffs counsels intent to continue filing similar lawsuits 17 against Narconon as evidenced by his advertising to former Narconon students, conformance to the 18 Rules should be established now. Accordingly, Narconon requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs 19 Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failing to comply with the basic rules of 20 pleading. 21 B. 22 23
Plaintiffs Complaint Should be Stricken, or At The Very Least, Plaintiffs Should Be Ordered To Provide A More Definite Statement In Conformity With The Rules Rule 8(f) allows the Court to strike from a pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,

24 or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f). If the Court is not inclined to grant Narconons Motion 25 to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, alternatively, Narconon requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be 26 stricken. Alternatively, Narconon requests that paragraphs 6-88, 92, 97 of Plaintiffs Complaint be 27 stricken. The paragraphs that remain contain adequate information to comply with the Rules. 28
Should this Court not dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, strike it, or strike the requested 4829-6789-0458.1 7

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 8 of 9

1 paragraphs, Narconon requests that this Court order Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement in 2 conformity with the Rules. Rule 8(e) provides that a party may move for a more definite statement 3 of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the 4 party cannot reasonably prepare a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Narconon does not believe that 5 this is the most adequate and most appropriate relief, however, at the very least it would provide 6 Plaintiffs with a second bite at the apple to draft a pleading that conforms to the Rules, which would 7 allow Narconon to draft an intelligent response. 8 9
IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Narconon respectfully requests that this Court grant its

10 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint against Narconon. Alternatively, Narconon requests that this 11 Court strike Plaintiffs Complaint in whole or in part, or order Plaintiffs to provide a more definite 12 statement in conformity with the Rules. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4829-6789-0458.1 8 By /s/ Alayne Opie S. BRENT VOGEL Nevada Bar No. 006858 ALAYNE M. OPIE Nevada Bar No. 012623 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 DATED this 8th day of April, 2014 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 9 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP and that on this 8th day of April 2014, I did cause a true copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT to be served via the CM/ECF electronic system to all parties on the service list.

Ryan A. Hamilton 8 HAMILTON LAW 5125 S. Durango Dr., Ste. C 9 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (702) 818-1818 Facsimile: (702) 974-1139 10 Email: ryan@hamiltonlawlasvegas.com

11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4829-6789-0458.1 9 By: ___/s/ Alayne Opie An Employee of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP