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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA HARRY GEANACOPULOS, a Massachusetts Citizen; LAUREN GEANACOPULOS, a Massachusetts Citizen; and PETER GEANACOPULOS, a Massachusetts Citizen, Plaintiffs, vs. NARCONON FRESH START d/b/a RAINBOW CANYON RETREAT; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL; NARCONON INTERNATIONAL; and DOES 1-100, ROE Corporations I
–
X, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.:2:14-CV-00629-JCM-NJK
PLAINTIFFS
’
RESPONSE TO ABLE
AND NARCONON INTERNATIONAL’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 12(b)(2) AND12(b)6
Plaintiffs, Harry Geanacopulos, Lauren Geanacopulos, and Peter Geanacopulos, by and through their counsel of record, hereby answer Defendants Association for Better Living and Education International
and Narconon International’s
Motion under the authority of FRCP Rule 12(b)(2) [lack of personal jurisdiction] and 12(b)(6) [failure to state a claim]
(hereinafter “Motion
to Dismiss
”)
.
Case 2:14-cv-00629-JCM-NJK Document 17 Filed 07/24/14 Page 1 of 30
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
This Response is based on factual evidence presently available to Plaintiffs, the Points and Authorities which follow, the records, pleadings and files herein, together with any oral argument the Court may entertain. DATED this 24
th
day of July, 2014. HAMILTON LAW By: RYAN A. HAMILTON, ESQ. NV 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 Plaintiffs
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION
On at least seventeen distinct websites, Narconon International (here
after “NI”)
and Association For Better Living and Education International (here
after “ABLE”)
(collectively referred to as
“Defendants”)
have specifically directed advertisements for the Narconon treatment program at Nevada residents. This number does not even include the ten websites Narconon Fresh
Start d/b/a Rainbow Canyon Retreat (hereafter “Fresh Start”) owns. But Defendants’ numerous
websites directed at Nevada are just the tip of the iceberg.
Defendants’ operations m
anuals for Fresh Start and other individual Narconon centers reveal that
Defendants’ control nearly every aspect of Fresh Start’s business. In stark contrast to the image of “mere licensors” Defendants seek to portray
in their Motion to Dismiss, their own documents show they control the day-to-day operations at Fresh Start. These documents
Case 2:14-cv-00629-JCM-NJK Document 17 Filed 07/24/14 Page 2 of 30
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
demonstrate that Defendants
have ultimate authority over all decisions related to Fresh Start’s
hiring and firing, advertising, delivery of services, financial decisions, procedures, and general operation.
Based on Defendants’ absolute control over Fresh Start’s operations, their Internet
advertising campaign targeting Nevada, and their licensing of the Narconon program to Fresh Start, they have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Nevada. There is little question that
Plaintiffs’ injuries
stem
directly from Defendants’
Nevada-related activities. But for Defendants licensing the Narconon program for use at Fresh Start, Peter Geanacopulos would not have gone there for treatment and sustained heart-related injuries. But for
NI’s promotion of a false success rate and other false claims about the Narconon program,
Plaintiffs would not have been duped into paying for treatment services that Fresh Start was not even capable of delivering.
Defendants’ operations manuals indicate such a high degree of control over and contact
with Fresh Start, Defendants could fairly be regarded as
“
at home
”
in Nevada. Under any analysis,
the Court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over Defendants is
proper. The Court should
therefore deny Defendants’ Motion to D
ismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). The Court should likewise d
eny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state each of their claims. Plaintiffs may hold
Defendants liable on these claims as principals of Fresh Start or as Fresh Start’s alter ego.
Plaintiffs also state claims for direct liability against Defendants.
II. DEFENDANTS
’
CONTACTS WITH NEVADA
In addition to seven training manuals, NI publishes two detailed operations manuals for individual Narconon centers such as Fresh Start. These operations manuals are titled
“Running An Effective Narconon Center” (hereafter “the
Running Manual
”)
and
“Opening A Successful
Case 2:14-cv-00629-JCM-NJK Document 17 Filed 07/24/14 Page 3 of 30
