12 3 u 15 16 RECEIVED SUR Oe ee toy Sure. CORTE coon COUNTY OF GE 2 oak Lene e Sitter CENTAA UST eee Pleinift MATTHEW D, FISH InP Por FEB 01 200 FEBO¥ 2 ZO! 1555 dank et 509-868-0955 (Phone/Fax) gy, BRYAN ¥ SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, - 30-2010 EMmEbcwLcase 003463530 COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (2) CONVERSION; G) FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT; (4) FRAUDULENT. MISREPRESENTATION; (3) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; AND. (6) VIOLATION OF BUSIN PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 et seq. (2) VIOLATION OF HEALTH PRIVACY AND CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §36.10 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §123120 MATTHEW D. FISHER, an Individual, Plaintiff, ws NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Ine. & California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive. Defendants Plaintiff! MATTHEW D. FISHER alleges as follows: 1 Plaintiff, MATTHEW D. FISHER, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, 2 Defend Narconon Southern California, hereinafter "NARCONON SC," is @ California corporation doing business in the State of California. 3. Defendant, NARCONON SC solicits customers throughout the United States ineluding Newport Beach in Orange County, California 4. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants named in this action as DOES | through 20, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Page 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES19 1 12 13 24 25 26 Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants when they have been ascertained. 5. The amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of this cour. 6. Venue is proper beesuse Defendant NARCONON SC, through their agents and representatives (sued herein es DOES | through 20), actively solicits and conducts business in this county, and the lity alleged in this complaint arises directly fom acts in this county by Defendants causing injury to Plaintist GENERAL ALLEGATIONS On or about November 1, 2005, Plaintiff and his family began evaluating residential treatment centers for substance abuse. Plaintiff desired a secular-based program that could meet his complex inedical and support needs and to help educate and support him maintaining a long-term substance-free lifestyle. 8. Based upon Plaintiff's Intemet research, Plaintiff and his family contacted a referral hotline on or about November 5, 2005 and spoke to a woman who identified herself as Doe 1. Plaintiff described his, comple and extensive needs including physiological disabilities requiring medications coupled mental health and addiction, PlaintifPexplained, among exter needs, he was looking for extensive education and sound belief om, one-on-one licensed counsel rapy with a peer group of clients, and a relaxed, clean group t and remote location, free from excessive stimulus, high energy and without relapse temptation. Doe I assured both Plaintiff and also his family that these conditions and methods were a match with NACONON SC and referred Plaintiff io Bob Markham. Bob Markham contacted Plaintiff and his family with an understanding of Plaintiff's physiological and psychological needs and what the Plaintiff was requiring. Bob Markham assured Plaintiff and his family that NARCONON SC would exceed Plaintiff's needs and expectations. Bob Markham! subsequently called Plaintiff atleast seven (7) times to pressure immediate entry of Plaintiff into the NARCONON SC facility and assuring Plaintiff that the full program details including meeting staff and clients facility tour, educational materials, program schedule and details would be met and satisfied upon arrival at NARCONON SC. Page 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 n 12 9. Based upon assurances and representation of Defendant's web site, agents, employees, and representatives, Plaintiff trusted Defendant and flew from Missoula, Montana on or about November 10, 2 Upon arriving by plane to Orange County, Plaintiff was met atthe airport by Defendant's employee Gary Downs and another unknown male passenger Doe 2, Plaintiff was driven by Gary Downs from the airport to the NARCONON SC facility in Newport Beach, California, Plaintiff, requiring rest trom travel and immediat detoxification, was instead taken to a closet-sized office occupied by Bob Markham and @ eo-worker. 10. Bob Markham, and intermittently Gary Downs, began a lengthy admission interview process requiring completing 20 pages of medical history, biographical gathering and reading numerous pages of complex, small-printed legal conditions and program policies and procedures, Constant interruptions in the cramped office combined Plaintif?'s condition prevented proper understanding of the content of the discussion. Plaintift stopped Markham on page 1 of the Admission Agreement (hereafter “Agreement”) after Markham contradicted verbal phone conversations in stating all required program fees were immediately due and there ‘were no refinds. This was different for numerous reasons; Plaintiff believed a substantial down payment had been made already by family prior to his arival, Plaintt? did not arrive with $24,000.00 inchand after being, told via phone that ‘convenient’ billing could be made after an intial down-payment which could be followed by payment installments, and a refund could be pro-rated should defendant not find the program appropriate to his needs.. 11, Faced with blatantly different stressfi financial demands, Plaimiff still di his best to gather information promised and requested to review the program, meet staff and clients, see the facility and view educational materials, review the program schedule and see comprehensive treatment details. Instead, Markham and Downs told Plaintiff these would be provided in due course and the Plaintiff simply needed to trust Markham and Downs and ‘do the program.’ Plaintiff asked what “do the program’ meant but was told this comes with days of being there ‘doing the program,” 12, Ina clear attempt to distract Plaintiff from gathering answers, Markham grew frustrated and stopped the admissions process completing the Agreement and offered that he would see about the payment confusion and options and could’resolve this in the next couple days.” In the meantime, Markham stared Page 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPlaintiff could ‘do the program’ and take the next couple days to see the facility, meet staf, review program methodologies, books ind materials and settle in, detoxify and rest. In making this offer, Markham repeated stated NARCONON SC’s refund policy different than the printed text in which all fees would be pro-rated and] pending Plaintf?'s approval after a full review of program books and methodologies and facilities. Plaintif? noted in writing on the Agreement Markham's verbatim verbal promises as ‘though pro-rated and pending program review questions’ next to the printed refund policy. This page is signed by Plaintiff and Gary Downs and dated November 10, 2005. 13. Having made the verbatim written notation but unable to complete the entire admission process due to interruptions, staf frustration and Plaintft’s requests, Plaintiff was next surprised 10 be taken off-site 20 minutes away for medical deto jfcation. At ‘Chapman House’ Plaintiff was asked again to complete more paperwork for what was described as a separate detoxification medical facility called “Chapman House.” Plaintiff'soon discovered that rather than a medical facility rum by NARCONON SC. Plaintiff instead was being treated by a company offering private residential homes watehousing people staying with unlicensed medical staff. 14, ‘The next day, on or about the moming of November 11, 2005, NARCONON SC through Markham and Downs demanded completion of the admission interview, Agreement and full payment, After the initial moming conversation, Plaintiff was contacted by Markham again in the early afternoon after securing partial $14,000.00 payment from Plaintiff's family 15. Despite this large initia large payment by Plaintiff, Markham repeated his demand for the balance, Plaintiff was not given options on how to remain in the program while obtaining the additional {$10,000.00 demanded; Plaintiff was not offered time or any installment payment plans nor given resources on secuting alternate forms of loans, promissory notes or other funding options. Plaintiff explained the $10,000.00 balance could only be made after Plaintiff flew back to Montana and came back to California Defendant's stated leaving was a violation of program rules unless he was quitting the program. Markham further stated there were no refunds of the $14,000.00 already paid despite this being at odds and written, verbatim on Agreement. Plaintiff, experiencing increased stress at the impossible situation, became upset and Page 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 u 12 13 rt as daily asked for his necessary daily medications and to speak with a physician. Plaintiff was denied hi medications and no physician on-site as was promised, expected and needed, Plaintiff was told he would have to wait for medical intervention, Waiting over 4 hours, Plaintiff was finally given the chance to speak with a medical provider, Doe 3, who, despite not being a physician, was able to offer Plaintiff that medical assistance would be artiving later in the evening. 16. Having received medical assistance Plaintiff, despite his state, was ultimately required wo fly alone back to Montana to meet the payment demands of NARCONON SC, In his attempts to leave, Plaintiff's wallet, keys and other possessions were withheld and he endured abuse and hours of involuntary detainment, Doe 4, who ran the detoxification house, and subsequently Gary Downs were insistent but could not offer viablle ideas 10 Plaintiff. Plaintiff reiterated he was not quitting the program but NARCONON SC and Bob Markham required full payment. Reluctantly agreeing to leave clothes, toiletries, and other belongings. behind, Plaintiff was ultimately given his wallet, keys and a ride to the airport to fly all the way back to Montana on or about the evening of November 12, 2005, 17. Plaintiff returned as promised from Montana vie airplane to NARCONON SC on oF about ‘November 14, 2005 after hearing from Defendant's that entire payment had been processed. Plaintiff was met atthe airport by Gary Down and again driven to NARCONON SC to finish previously-incomplete admission paperwork, PlaintifT reiterated his previous request to see the facility, meet staff, review program. methodologies, and review required books and materials. Plaintiff was told by Gary Downs this would aot be ‘problem after the paperwork was complete, Having completed the admission paperwork, Plaintif's requests were ignored and instead of keeping their promises, NARCONON SC and Gary Downs whisked Plaintiff to different detoxification home" run by “Chapman House.” 18. Plaintif’spent the next three day's and two nights in a two-story residential home run by Doe without any group, one-on-one counseling or other structured or promised activities. Plaintiff’ asked for his medications and also each morning to speak with 2 physician but, contrary to Plaintif?'s needs and Defendant's representations, none was available to manage Plaintiff's ongoing medical and psychological needs. Plaintiff was told by Doe 5 he would have to wait for medical care and suffered through undefined timelines and delays| Page 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES15 16 1s ag 20 ach day until medical assistance arrived in the evenings. Days were spent cramped with 7-9 clients and 1-2 staf? in @ normal residential home whe e smoking. eating ind caffeine drinking coffee and television were routine rather than recreation and social support, recovery activ es, one-on-one counseling or structured grou interaction, or treatment, 19, Plaintiff complained and was told by Doe 5, who ran the house, that most find the medical, environmental, social and intellectual promises unmet and are uncomfortable with NARCONON SC. Plaintif asked Gary Down to be moved from the house to a different location to begin to ‘do the program.” Plaintif® ‘was ultimately moved back to NARCONON SC’s Newport Beach location; however, upon doing so, broken promises were just beginning to be realized. 20, ALNARCONON SC, PlaintitFberter understood why 59 much had been hid from him as he sat sequestered to a closet office during prev us visits for admission, Rather than being a relaxed and remote location clean and free from excessive stimulus, high energy and free from temptation, Plaintiff discovered a ‘multi-level dangerously overly-crowded lhome made into a maze of bunk beds and overrun with teenagers who routinely were sneak offto nearby downtown areas and returning with illicit substances. Staff hid in the basement rather than enforce rules while teenagers were on the roof, cigarettes were smoked on decks, and sexual trysts were had in a bathroom hot water closet across from Plaintiff's assigned bedroom, Unlike promises from the admission staff and signed paperwork, there were no offices for one-on-one counseling, no visible licensed addiction or counseling of medical professionals, and the group therapy room consisted of a multi-function 15°X25" room jammed with metal folding chairs and damaged tables where bull-baifing insults and commands were shouted. Around the tables were globs of clay for apparently seulpting images of oneself while the next person sat with their food brought from the floor below and a TV and movie raz playing in the comer. 21. Onone of the tables Plaintiff viewed course materials for the frst time; he scanned a workbook of grade-school-like exereises accompanied by another referred to as “Book #1”. Inside Book #1 Plaintiff did not find mainstream addiction 12-sieps work, psychological treatment methodologies, nor belief systems based on Christian or other mainstream recognized beliefs. Instead, this was the first time he was Page 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESstunned to discover Scientology doctrine. PlaintifY had never been informed of the Seientology-based program; it was never mentioned on Defendant's web site, not stated in admission paperwork and it was intentionally eoncealed to deceive Plaintiff and his family 22, Plaintiff asked Doe 6 and Doe 7, who were program converts and identified themselves as ‘ethics officers,” 10 explain how the Scientology-based program worked. They echoed previous statements of Plaintiff needing to be a ‘good student” and ‘do the program." They elaborated that Plaintiff must complete readings, do the workbook, consume vast amou 's of vitamins several times a day. drink *CalMag” drink supplements, take regular multi-hour saunas in a room hidden in the basement, walk and do“P exercises including touching and responding to commands by others. Gary Downs appeared and impatiently commanded these were “student responsibilities” and that I had agreed to ‘do the progratn.” Asking Gary Downs how the program would educate him, and provide long-term support and promote Plaintiff's Christisn secular beliefs and how my being a *student" was did not rise to Scientology being a ‘cult,’ Plaintiff was ‘minimized and humiliated in front of others by being called ‘a faggot’ and ordered isolation to Plaintiff's own bedroom in apparent compliance with Book t which required Scientology-mandated bull-baiting. At no time during Plainti’s stay did he ever hear the words addiction, recovery, drugs or, most importantly, recovery 23. Plaintiff's bedroom was visited a short time later by “Scott” who told Plaintiff he was an “ethics officer” who commanded Plaintiff come for a walk. Plaintiff let with ‘Scott,’ who stated he was no licensed but instead was a program graduate, along with 2 other students, Upon returning from his walk. Plaintiff was told he was to be given an “assist” in his room. PlaintitT was told to lie in bis clothing face down ona massage table. During the ‘assist,’ “Scott” touched his hands and boxy on various limbs and more awkward parts of Plaintiff's body and stated “feel my finger.’ to which Plaintiff stated he was uncomfortable. Plaintiff's complaints were ignored and he was ordered to acknowledge *Scott’s’ touch so it could improve energy flow 24. Once the ‘assist” was complete and Plaintiff and his roommate were alone for a short period ‘of time, Gary Downs came in the room without knocking 10 visit Plaintif?'s roommate, Plaintif’s roommate stated he wanted to leave and go get high and Gary Downs responded with subtle and then more abusive bull- Page 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESbaiting insults and strong-armed way’ fo convince the roommate otherwise. Gary Downs eventually agreed. and tielped Plaintfi"s roommate break NARCONON SC own rules and inexplicably obtained heroin from some apparently ‘confiscated drugs.” This enticed Plaintii?'s roommate to stay longer and allow for more time| to “do the program 25. Later that evening, staff continued their Scientology Training Routines, Plaintiff was ordered for another walk and returned back to his bedroom for another ‘assist’ from Scott. Again after awkward touchii aintifT was asked to ‘name something in the room I could have.” As required, Plaintiff named something and was told to name something else, and then something else. After Plaintiff had named everything in the room, Plaintiff told Scott that was all. Scott said, “T will repeat the command again, name something in the room you can have.” Plaintiff struggled to name more and repeated some previously named objects. 26. Plaintiff made up his mind to leave NARCONON SC immediately thereafter. A stream of staff ensued ineludin colt”. Gary Downs and others who began exhaustive attempts that evening and through the ni to maneuver Plaintiff to stay. ‘They employed Scientoloyy ‘Training Routines, rehearsed speeches, repeated arguments and bull-baiting abuse denying Plaintiff any sleep and being denied the chance to use the phone. Plaintiff's roommate also asked to leave with the Plaintiff after they were able to use @ contraband cell phone to call from a closet to calla local car rental company and arrange pick up. Informing staff that a rental car company was coming, Plaintiff was ordered to leave the premises immediately Plain {I's helongings were scattered about and dropped outside from a window though Gary Downs continued to withhold Plaintiff's wallet, keys and possessions. Plaintiff’s rental car company arrived, when Gary Downs emerged with Plainti(?’s remaining belonging except for Plaintiffs electronics. Plains roommate exited the building and both were driven quickly away to the rental car agency. 27. On the way to the rental car PlaintifY quickly discovered NARCONON SC and Gary Downs had removed from Plaintiffs wallet money and credit cards. Newport Beach California Police and Orange County Sheriff Deputies were called and promptly arrived at the rental car agency. Shortly thereafter, Gary Downs arrived and admitted to police he had destroyed Plaintif's eredit cards: Gary Downs was Page 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES20 al 22 admonished and cited by deputies. Gary Downs still inexplicably failed to return all of Defendants possessions including a laptop computer and ultimately shipped Defendant's items to him out-of-state some time later after the items were “found.” Defendant learned later that an American Express Card was, without Defendan 's authorization or signature, charged program fees before being destroyed by Downs. 28. Plaintiff was warmed by Newport Beach Police Departinent and especially an Orange County Sheriff's deputies that NARCONON was a “cult” about which they have many problems at and receive many complaints about. One deputy subsequently offered to pay for a hotel near the airport and then drove Plaintiff there. At the hotel Plaintiff was ultimately able to contact family and arrange for money for a flight home the next morning to escape from NARCONON SC. 29. Plaintiff's subsequent requests in December 2005 for a refund from NARCONON SC were denied contrary to verbatim writing on the Agreement. In seeking a refund, Defendant’s employee June Rosenberry disclosed on or about both December 13, 2005 and January 23, 2006, confidential and protected private medical information and records. Plaintiff subsequently contacted June Rosenberry to demand her cease distributing Plaintiff's medical information: Rosenberry ignored complaints with an intent to distract from Defendant's breach of contract, fraud, inducement to fraud, misrepresentations and violations of duties required in both professional and California Civil Codes, CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract) 30. Plaintiff realteges and incorporates herein by reference, as though fully hereinafter set forth at length, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 29. 31. Plaintiffand Defendants entered into a verbal agreement over the telephone and at the NARCONON SC facility with verbatim notations made on the admission Agreement regarding refund terms. In consideration of Plaintiffs payment, Defendants promised to provide Plaintiff, among other things, dual diagnosis assistance, individual therapy, drug education, group therapy with a chort, and 24-hour aecess to Page 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESmedical care by qualified physicians when necessary. and a safe, recreational environment. Defendant's 1 2, || Wetste aso states these sane benefits i Defendants materially breached this Agreement when they refused to provide the services as, , [[Promse under an Agreement and retsed to retund the money paid acorsing to verbatim writen notions __ |J onthe admission agreement and as promised by Defendants’ representative Gary Downs and Bob Markham. 33. Plaintif has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on is part to be performed according to its Agreement with Defendants 34. Defendant's breaches have caused Plaintiff past, present, and future damages, an amount to be| proved at trial, SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion) an 35. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though fully hereinafter set forth at length, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs | through 34 a 36. Asa result of Defendants’ material breaches of the Agreement, Defendants had a duty to 14 |] repay Plaintiff the entire amounts paid to Defendants under the express and implied terms and verbatim notations contained on the Agreement. Yet, through the direction of Defendants’ agents, Defendant(s) 26 |] convened for itselforshemselves the money due to Plant by refusing to issue a refund to Paint 17 |] Defendant also changed Defendants credit eard without authorization, signature oF without Plaintif’s knowledge or direction 9 37. Plaintiff never consented to, approved, waived or ratified any such conversion by Defendants. 20 38, Plaintiff took all reasonable steps to ensure that he would be paid all sums due from 21 || Defendants, in accordance with the Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants. 22 39. Defendants knowingly and intentionally converted Plaintiff's funds in order to further their 23 || personal business interests while ignoring PlaintifM's repeated refund demands, 2e 40. Plaintiff has been damaged by such conversion 26 Fage 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESTHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - (Fraud In The Inducement) fi 41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully 3 || set forth in the allegations contained in paragraphs | through 40 her if 42, When Defendants, through their respective employees, made representations to Plaintiff that Plaintiff would receive individualized therapy, case management, and 24-hour access to. medical doctor © || during his stay at Defendants’ facitities, Defendants knew them to be false, and the representations were made 7 || with the intent to defraud and deceive Plaintiff, and with the intent to induce Plaintiff to purchase the services 8 that Plaintiff were promised. 43. When Defendants entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants knew that they in 20 |) fact would use this arrangement to keep for themselves Plaimtfts $24,000.00, regardless of whether Plainti 11 || was ever to receive the services promised to him and Plaintiff, and concealed this information from Plaintiff 12 || and his family. 3 44. tthe time these representations were made, and atthe time it took the actions herein alleged] 44 |] Plaintiff was ignorant of the falsity of the Defendants’ representations as 45. In reliance upon the representations of Defendant, Plaintiff was induced to enter into an 16 |] Agreement with Defendants promising the services set forth therein, 7 46, Had Plaintiff known the actual facts, Plaintiff would not have entered into any such 18 |] Agreement, and not acted in the manner alleged herein, Plaintiffs reliance on the Defendants representations 8 || was justified and reasonable because of his belief that Defendant was making representations to Plaintiff fairly, honestly and in good faith, and because there was nothing that led Plaintiff to befieve that the 21 |] Defendants would deftaud and exploit Plaintiff, 22 47. Asaproximate result of Defendants fraud and deceit, and the facts alleged herein, Plaintiff 23 || has been damaged in an amount according to proof at tral 48. Inddoing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, willfully, maliciously, 26 |Joppressively, and with callous and intentional disregard of Plaintiffs interests, and subjected Plaintiff to unjust Page 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES@ 10 cE 16 hardship, knowing that Defendants’ conduct was substantially likely to damaye Plaintiff, As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages, FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Misrepresentation) 49, Piha ‘and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully set forth the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48 herein, 50. When Defendants made multiple representations that Plaintiff would, among other things, receive individualized conventional addiction and psychological therapy, secular belief support, one-on-one counseling thom licensed professionals, education, group sessions and 24-hour access to a medical doctor uring his stay at Defendants’ facilities, Defendants knew them to be false, and the representations were made with the intent to defraud and deceive Plaintiff, and with the intent to induce Pla tiff to purchase the services, ‘on behalf of Plaintiff that Plaintiff and his family were promised, 51. When Defendant entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants knew that they in fact ‘would use this arrangement to keep for themselves Plaintiffs $24,000.00 paid, regardless of whether Plaintiff ‘was ever to receive the services promised, and concealed this information from Plaintiff and family. 52, Atthe time these representations were made, and at the time he took the actions herein alleged, Plaintiff was, worant of the falsity of the Defendants’ representations and Defendant's intentionally hid their Seientology-based methodologies. tn reliance upon these representations and hnidden methodologies, Plaintiff was induced to enter into an Agreement with Defendants promising the services set forth therein, 53. Plaintis’ retiance on the Defendants’ representations was justified and reasonable because of] its belief that Defendants were making representations to Plaintift fairly, honestly and in good faith, and because there was nothing that led Plaintiff to believe that the Defendants would defraud and exploit Plaintiff. Had Plaintiff known the actual facts, Plaintiff would not have entered into any such Agreement. 54. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ fraudulent mistepresentations and deceit, and the facts alleged herein, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount acconting o proof at tral 55. Indoing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted out their fraudulent miseepresentations willfully, maliciously, oppressively, and with callous and intentional disregard of Plaintiff interests, and Face 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES14 15. 16 18 19 20 subjected PlaintifF to unjust hardship, knowing that Defendants’ eonduet was substantially likely to damage Plaintiff, As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Pisintiffis entitled to an award of punitive damages. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Misrepresentation) 56, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully set forth the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 55 herein, 57. When Defendants made multiple representations to Plaintiff that he would receive individualized therapy. drug education, group therapy and 24-hour access to a medical doctor during his stay at Defendants’ facilities, Defendants knew or should have known them to be false, and thereby induced Plaintift to purchase the services Plaintiff and his family were promised. 58. When Defendants entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants knew or should have known that they in fact would use this arrangement to keep tor themselves Plaintf’s $24,000.00, regardless of ‘whether Plaintiff was ever to receive the services promised to him and Plaintft, anc! concealed this informatio] from Plaintiff and family. Because of Defendants’ negligent representation, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages, 59. Defendants had a duty to disclose facts they knew or should have known would materially and adversely affect Plaintiff's decision to enter into the Agreement with Defendants, and breached this duty Defendants are therefore liable for Plaintiffs damages proximately caused by their negligent imisrepresentation. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq. - Fraudulent Acts or Practices) 60. Plaintiff reatleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully set forth the allegations contained in paragraphs | through $9 herein. 61, Califoenia Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq, probibits acts of unfair competition, which means, and includes, any "fraudulent business act or practice." Conduct which is “likely to deceive" is "fraudulent" within the meaning of Section 17200. Fage 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 qn 12 62. When Defendants, through its employees, made representations to Plaintiff that Paint? would receive individualized therapy, ease management, and 24-hour access to a medical doctor during his, stay at Defendants! facilities, Defendants knew them to be false, and the representations were made with the intent to defraud and deceive Plaintiff. and with the intent to induce Plaintiff to purchase the services that Plaintiff and his tamily were promised. Defendants statements above were likely to deceive, and did in fact deceive, Plaintiff, proximately’ causing substantial damages and injury to Plaintiff 63. Defendants’ verbal representations under the Agreement that Plaintiff would receive a *pro- rated? refund upon were made to deceive, and did in fact deceive, Plaintiff, proximately causing substantial damages and injury to Plainttt 64, When Defendants entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff; Defendants knew that they in fact would use this arrangement to keep for themselves $24,000.00, rewardless of whether Plaintiff was entitled to arefimd as verbally represented and notated on the admission agreement, and concealed this information ‘from Plaintiff. Instead, Defendants attempted strategy involved Plaintiff signing Defendants form agreements containing contrary terms 65. Defendants! verbal representations notated on the admissions agreement that Plainti( would receive a refund if entitled to a refund were likely to deceive, and di in fact deceive, Plaintiff, proximately causing substantial damages and injury to Plaintif, 66. Plaintiff i, therefore, entitled to relief under Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Code §56.10 and Health & Safety Code §123110) 67. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fally set forth the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 66 herein. 68. California Civil Code §56.10, et seq. provides in subdivision (a) that, "No provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining an authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) oF (¢).” Page 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES20 22 23 24 69. When Defendants, through its employees and particularly ther refund coordinator June Rosenberry, disclosed Plaintiff's medical condition and other protected health information and reeords 0 American Express, Defendants intentional and knowingly did so in violation of California Civil Code §56.10, Such disclosure was not permissible by subdivisions (b) or (¢) of California Civit Code §56.10 et seq, 70. When Defendants, through its employee Bob Markham and others. changed Plaintiff's credit card without Defendant’ authorization, knowledge or signature, Defendants knowingly violated Plaintiff's privacy by disclosing protected medical informs jon. Defendant’s induced American Express to cherge for services that Defendant knew did not meet the representations and promises made to Plaintiff with the express. purpose of proximately defrauding and deceiving Plaintift 7). California Health and Safety Code §123110, et seq. provides, in part, that a patient's representative shall be entitled to copies of all or any portion of the patient records that he or she has right to inspect, upon presenting a written request....” Defendant knowingly and intentionally violated Plaintiff's heath privacy by wrongfully recognizing Plaintiff's credit card company, American Express, as a representative to disclose Plaintiff's medical records. Defendant did so forthe express purpose of inducing [American Express to support charges for services that Defendant knew did not meet the representations and promises made to Plaintiff'and with the express purpose of proximately defrauding and deceiving Plaintiff 72, Defendants’ statements and! release of protected health records to American Express did in fact deceive Plaintiff's eredit card company American Express, and therefore violated Defendant’s health privacy rights and proximately caused substantial damages and injury to Plaintiff, 73. Plaintiffs, therefore, emitled to relief for violation of health privacy under both California Civil Code §56.10 et seq, and under Californian Health and Safety Code §123110 et seq. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 74, Fordamages in the amount of $24,000.00 plus intrest a the legal rate; 73, For punitive damages as allowed by law: 76. For reasonable attomeys’ fees in amount to be determined at trial: 7. For costs of suit inthis action: and Page 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES78. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, e “ |onessanane2Eo10 sent Deer : Matthe Fisher Plaintiff In Pro Per 4 P.O, Box 1635, Veradale, WA 99037-1635 . 509-868-0955 (phone‘fax) Page 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES