Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Plaintiff's Venue Motion opposition/ Memorandum of Points and Authorities/ Locatelli vs Narconon Southern California & Joshua Hills:

Plaintiff's Venue Motion opposition/ Memorandum of Points and Authorities/ Locatelli vs Narconon Southern California & Joshua Hills:

Ratings: (0)|Views: 443 |Likes:
Published by Mary McConnell
Locatelli opposition to Narconon Venue motion- Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Re:
SARAH Locatelli, an individual,

Plaintiff,
vs.
NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, NARCONON JOSHUA HILLS, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
(2) CONVERSION;
(3) FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT;
(4) FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION;
(5) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; AND
(6) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 et seq.
Locatelli opposition to Narconon Venue motion- Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Re:
SARAH Locatelli, an individual,

Plaintiff,
vs.
NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, NARCONON JOSHUA HILLS, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
(2) CONVERSION;
(3) FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT;
(4) FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION;
(5) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; AND
(6) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 et seq.

More info:

Published by: Mary McConnell on Jan 15, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/31/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Plaintiff SARAH LOCATELLIIn Pro Per (530) 274-8198 (phone/fax)
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF NEVADA
SARAH LOCATELLI, an individual,Plaintiff,vs. NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, aCalifornia corporation, NARCONONJOSHUA HILLS, a California corporation, andDOES 1 through 20 inclusive,Defendants.  ______________________________________ )))))))))))))))))))))Case No. L75070UNLIMITED CIVIL CASEPLAINTIFF MEMORANDUM INOPPOSITION TO DEFENDENTS'MOTION TO CHANGE VENUEDate: September 25, 2009Time: 10:00 a.m.Trial Date: None yetMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESINTRODUCTIONThis is a complaint for 
 
BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THEINDUCEMENT, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATIONAND VIOLATION OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 et seq.It is Plaintiff's belief, as noted SARAH LOCATELLI AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITIONTO CHANGE OF VENUE attached to this Reply in Opposition, that Narconon Southern California(NNSC) was unlicensed to do business and operate as a drug rehabilitation residential facility in
 
Riverside County nor in any county as the entity known as "Narconon Joshua Hills." Narconon JoshuaHills, Inc (NNJH) is a separate corporate entity which began doing business in August 2007 accordingto their Federal Tax Return which Plaintiff believed was a part of Narconon Southern California whenit isn't. It is legally described in the Affidavit of Sarah Vogel. The NNSC contract that was received inthe mail after the services were canceled, after Daniel had returned home, after a refund was asked for,went unsigned.Venue is proper because "a substantial portion of the transaction occurred" via internet, telephone, faxand mail from my home in Grass Valley after being solicited and sold services in a fraudulent manner or scheme by known and not yet known, employees, agents and representatives of the Narconon program on behalf of Narconon Southern California. (Telemarketing Sales Rule 16 CFR Part 310Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act 15 U.S.C Sec. 6101 et seq. 1670.6.- "Acontract with a consumer located in California for the purchase of a good or service that is made inconnection with a telephone solicitation made in or from outside of California and is primarily for  personal, family, or household use, is unlawful if, with respect to that telephone solicitation, thetelemarketer is in violation of Section 310.4(a)(6)(i) of, or has not complied with Section 310.5(a)(5)of, the Federal Trade Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 310), as published in theFederal Register, Volume 68, Number 19, on January 29, 2003. This section shall apply only to thoseentities subject to, and does not apply to any transaction exempted under Section 310.6 of, theTelemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 310), as published in the Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 19, on January 29, 2003. " )The points of the complaint concern the deceptive trade practices and federal telemarketing violations(CCC Secs 1750-1780C) and practices perpetuated against Plaintiff while in her residence, viatelephone, is in this county. Defendants NARCONON SC and NARCONON JH, through their agentsand representatives (sued herein as DOES 1 through 20), actively solicited Plaintiff 's business and doesso of other consumers in this county, and the liability alleged in this complaint arises directly from actscommitted via telephone in this county by Defendants causing injury to Plaintiff.
 
The references for this request and the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT BY SARAH VOGEL include:CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1750 et seq known as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,section 1780 (a) & (c) state " Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 may bring an action against such person to recover or obtain any of the following:
(1) Actual damages, but in no case shall the total award of damages in a class action beless than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(2) An order enjoining such methods, acts, or practices.
(3) Restitution of property.
(4) Punitive damages.
(5) Any other relief which the court deems proper.Section 1780(c) An action under subdivision (a) or (b) may be commenced in the county in which the person against whom it is brought resides, has his or her principal place of business, or is doing business, or in the county where the transaction or any substantial portion thereof occurred.If within any such county there is a municipal or justice court, having jurisdiction of the subject matter,established in the city and county or judicial district in which the person against whom the action is brought resides, has his or her principal place of business, or is doing business, or in which thetransaction or any substantial portion thereof occurred, then such court is the proper court for the trialof such action. Otherwise, any municipal or justice court in such county having jurisdiction of thesubject matter is the proper court for the trial thereof.In any action subject to the provisions of this section, concurrently with the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff shall file an affidavit stating facts showing that the action has been commenced in a county or  judicial district described in this section as a proper place for the trial of the action. "" 1670.6. A contract with a consumer located in California for the purchase of a good or service that ismade in connection with a telephone solicitation made in or from outside of California and is primarily for personal, family, or household use, is unlawful if, with respect to that telephonesolicitation, the telemarketer is in violation of Section 310.4(a)(6)(i) of, or has not complied withSection 310.5(a)(5) of, the Federal Trade Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 310),as published in the Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 19, on January 29, 2003. This section

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->