1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Ryan A. Hamilton  NEVADA BAR NO. 11587 HAMILTON LAW 5125 S. Durango Dr., Ste. C Las Vegas, NV 89113 (702) 818-1818 (702) 974-1139 ryan@hamiltonlawlasvegas.com

 Attorney for the plaintiffs,  David, Stacy, and Jack Welch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

DAVID WELCH, a Texas Citizen; STACY WELCH, a Texas Citizen; and JACK WELCH, a Texas Citizen, Plaintiffs, vs.  NARCONON FRESH START d/b/a RAINBOW CANYON RETREAT, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, ROE Corporations I

 – 

 X, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.

2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH

 

PLAINTIFFS’

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CERTAIN RESPONSES TO THE COMPLAINT TO BE DEEMED ADMITTED AND TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)(2)

I

n its Opposition, Defendant Narconon Fresh Start (“Narconon”) continues to plead

ignorance as to the contents of

its own treatment program

. And, despite the fact that Narconon already filed an A

nswer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (albeit a deficient one), Narconon now asserts

that the Complaint violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and therefore the case should be dismissed. The

Court should not countenance Narconon’s

feigned ignorance

about itself 

.

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 14 Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 9

 

 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

The Court should deem

“

admitted

” paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Complaint that contain basic

factual allegations about Narconon and its drug treatment program to which Narconon improperly  pleads it lacks knowledge. These are paragraphs 17, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 55, 58, and

67 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Alternatively, the Court should require Narconon to re-plead its pleas of lack of knowledge and

its blanket denials in its Answer so that they “fairly respond to the

substan

ce of the allegation[s]” as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2).

DATED this 16

th

 day of April, 2014. HAMILTON LAW, LLC By: /s/Ryan A. Hamilton Ryan A. Hamilton  NV Bar No. 11587 5125 S. Durango Ste., C Las Vegas, NV 89113

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Plaintiffs sued Narconon for inducing Plaintiff Jack Welch to enter its treatment program with false promises and for providing Jack with only Scientology as treatment. In addition, Jack sustained serio

us injuries undergoing Narconon’s sauna program that Plaintiffs allege is nothing

more than a dangerous Scientology ritual. Based on Plaintif 

f Jack Welch’s experience at  Narconon, Plaintiffs’ Complaint mak 

es factual allegations about the contents of Narcon

on’s

treatment program and how it operates. These allegations are central to

Plaintiffs’ claims

 and necessarily

within Narconon’s personal knowledge

.

In Narconon’s Brief in Opposition, Narconon variously asserts that it could not respond to Plaintiffs’ allegations about its own treatment program because the allegations are “too vague” “immaterial” “argumentative,” or “immaterial.” To that end, Narconon has moved to dismiss the

Co

mplaint 

despite having already answered it

 

 for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Each argument fails.

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 14 Filed 04/16/14 Page 2 of 9

 

 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

As an initial matter, under the pleading standards articulated in the United States Supreme

Court’s decisions

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

 ,

 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007), Plaintiffs were required to allege sufficient facts to state

 plausible claims for relief. Plaintiffs’

failure to set forth sufficient facts such that their claims

lacked “plausibility” und

er Twombly and Iqbal could have left their case susceptible to dismissal

for failure to state a claim. Moreover, Plaintiffs were required to plead Narconon’s fraud with

 particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Plaintiffs satisfied these pleading standards in their Complaint by alleging what false  promises Narconon made, who made them, and how Plaintiffs were harmed. Further, to allege sufficiently that Narconon treated Jack Welch only with Scientology, Plaintiffs allege that the subject matter taught in

the Narconon program is also found in the book “

Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought

.”

More simply, in their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege what the Narconon program contains and how it operates.

 Narconon’s assertions that it cannot answer as to

 the contents of its own program is an obvious sham. It is well-

settled that a party’s assertion of lack of knowledge does not serve as a denial if

the claim of ignorance is obviously a sham. Harvey Aluminum (Inc.) v. N.L.R.B., 335 F.2d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 1964). Nevertheless, Narconon asserts that Harvey is distinguishable because unlike in Harvey

, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not relate to findings of the company’s Board of Directors.

Opposition

 at 9

 – 

 10. Moreover, Narconon asserts that it has never addressed the precise issues in

Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Id.

 Narconon’s attempts to distinguish

Harvey and similar cases are unavailing. Of course, the rule that sham assertions of ignorance do not serve as denials is not specific to findings of Boards

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 14 Filed 04/16/14 Page 3 of 9