12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
4829-6789-0458.1
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
S. BRENT VOGEL 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 MICHAEL TARR, a Florida Citizen, Plaintiffs, vs. NARCONON FRESH START d/b/a RAINBOW CANYON RETREAT; and DOES 1-100, ROE Corporations I-X, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Defendant, NARCONON FRESH START dba RAINBOW CANYON RETREAT (“Narconon”), by and through its counsel Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 8(a)(2), and 8(d), or alternatively moves to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) or for a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 9
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
4829-6789-0458.1 2
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This Motion is based upon the papers and pleadings on file, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted herewith and any argument allowed at the time of any hearing on this matter. DATED this 8
th
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 over 100 paragraphs, nearly 120 pages including exhibits, a full deposition transcript from a distinctly separate lawsuit filed in Dekale County, Georgia, numerous conclusory statements, prolonged unnecessary quotes from books, “scientific” opinions, etc. The Complaint is argumentative, prolix, largely irrelevant, and is not “simple, concise, and direct” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(d). Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to adhere to the Rules is proper. Alternatively, should this Court not dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety for blatantly failing to adhere to the Rules, Narconon requests that this Court strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint in full or the “Factual Allegations” section contained therein as it contains redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous matter. Doc 1 at ¶ 6-88, 92, 97; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). If the Court chooses not to strike the entire Complaint but chooses to strike the “Factual Allegations” section, the portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint that would remain contain sufficient information to guide discovery without the superfluous rambling. Alternatively, should this Court not dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety, or strike the Complaint or “Factual Allegations” contained therein, Narconon requests that this Court
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 9
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
4829-6789-0458.1 3
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
order Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement in conformity with the Rules. As is, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to provide Narconon with a fair opportunity to frame a responsive pleading.
II.
FACTS
Narconon, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program, is being accused of indoctrinating the Church of Scientology in lieu of providing drug and alcohol counseling to its students. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ryan Hamilton, specifically advertises to former Narconon students, alleging that “Narconon uses a ‘bait and switch’ tactic to pray on families in their time of need.”
See
www.hamlegal.com. As of today’s date, Mr. Hamilton’s has filed no less than four lawsuits against Narconon on behalf of former students. On February 24, 2014, Plaintiffs, by and through Mr. Hamilton, filed their Complaint. Doc. 1. Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Narconon are basic; Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, fraud, and negligence. These causes of action are sufficiently plead in Plaintiffs’ Complaint in paragraphs 1-5, 89-91, 93-96, and 98-100 alone. The remaining paragraphs contained within Plaintiffs’ Complaint are superfluous language intended to paint Narconon in a poor light to the Court, the general public, and to garner media attention. In an attempt to prepare an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Narconon’s counsel reviewed it along with the attachments. Several hours were required to read Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the extensive exhibits attached. The Ninth Circuit has stated, a cause of action “[should] be read and answered in minutes.”
McHenry v. Renne
, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). This was clearly not possible here. Plaintiffs’ Complaint violates the Rules and relief is warranted.
III.
ARGUMENT A.
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. Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 which requires Plaintiffs to plead “a
short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and “each allegation must be
simple, concise, and direct
.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 8(d) (emphasis added). Where the allegations in a complaint are “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy and largely irrelevant,”
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 6 Filed 04/08/14 Page 3 of 9
