You are on page 1of 16

1

L

Plaintiff, MATTHEW D. FISHER, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State

RECE:IVE~)

SUPERIOR COu'";>: C)f' eli,. '''QRNI

COUNTY OF ORAf'.iGt: .

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

PlaintiffMA'lTHEW D. FISH'Pt-

In Pro Per cB 0 1 2010

2

509-868-0955 (Phone/Fax) BY: __ ... B""-IJR"""YAQjN ...... __

3

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER~

FEB- ocg 2OlO

1"''ZDf0

ALAN C l.SO Clerk of the Court

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

4

COUNTY Of ORANGE

) Case No.:

) UMITED CIVIL CASE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) )

~~~~~--------------~-----)

5

6

7

MA TTHEW D. FISHER, an Individual,

8

Plaintiff,

9

VS.

10

NARCONON SOUTIIERN CALIFORNIA, Inc. a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,

11

12

Defendants

13

14

15

16

17

Plaintiff MATTHEW D. FISHER alleges as follows:

18

19

of Washington.

30 .. 2010 00343530

COMPLAINT FOR :

(1) BREAnl OF CON'I'RACT; ...

(2) CONVERSION;····'·· ....... ~.iJ...._' .......... \ •.

(3) FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT;

(4) FRAUDULENT

MISREPRESENTATION;

(5) NEGLlGENT

MISREPRESENTA T10N; AND

(6) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS

PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 et seq.

(7) VIOLATION OF 11EALTH PRIVACY AND CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §56.10 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §123120

2. Defendant, Narconon Southern California, hereinafter "NARCONON SC," is a California

20

21

corporation doing business in the State of California.

3. Defendant, NARCONON SC solicits customers throughout the United States including

22

23

Newport Beach in Orange County, California.

4. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate. or otherwise, of

24

Defendants named in this action as DOES 1 through 20. are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these

25

26

Page 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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.

2

5. The amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of this court.

3

6. Venue is proper because Defendant NARCONON SC, through their agents and

4

representatives (sued herein as DOES I through 20), actively solicits and conducts business in this county. and

5

the liability alleged in this complaint arises directly from acts in this county by Defendants causing injury to

6

Plaintiff.

7

8

GENERAL ALL EGA TIONS

9

7. 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

medical and support needs and to help educate and support him maintaining a long-term substance-free

lifestyle.

8. Based upon Plaintiffs Internet 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 I. Plaintiff described his

complex and extensive needs including physiological disabilities requiring medications coupled mental health

and addiction. Plaintiff explained, among other needs, he was looking for extensive education and sound

belief system, one-on-one licensed counseling, group therapy with a peer group of clients, and a relaxed, clean

and remote location, free from excessive stimulus, high energy and without relapse temptation. Doe 1 assured

both Plaintiff and also his family that these conditions and methods were a match with NACONON SC and

referred Plaintiff to Bob Markham. Bob Markham contacted Plaintiff and his family with an understanding of

Plaintiffs 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 at least 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.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

9. Based upon assurances and representation of Defendant's web site, agents, employees, and

representatives, Plaintiff trusted Defendant and new from Missoula, Montana on or about November 10, 2005.

2

Upon arriving by plane to Orange County, Plaintiff was met at the airport by Defendant's employee Gary

3

Downs and another unknown male passenger Doe 2. Plaintiff was driven by Gary Downs from the airport to

4

the NARCONON SC facility in Newport Beach, California. Plaintiff, requiring rest from travel and immediate

5

detoxification, was instead taken to a closet-sized office occupied by Bob Markham and a co-worker.

6

10. Bob Markham, and intermittently Gary Downs, began a lengthy admission interview process

7

requiring completing 20 pages of medical history, biographical gathering and reading numerous pages of

8

complex, small-printed legal conditions and program policies and procedures. Constant interruptions in the

9

cramped office combined Plaintiffs condition prevented proper understanding of the content of the discussion.

Plaintiff stopped Markham on page I 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 refunds. This was different for numerous reasons; Plaintiff believed a substantial down payment had

been made already by family prior to his arrival, Plaintiff did not arrive with $24,000.00 in-hand after being

told via phone that 'convenient' billing could be made after an initial 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 ..

II. Faced with blatantly different stressful financial demands, Plaintiff still did 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.

In a 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 couldresolve this in the next couple days.' In the meantime, Markham stated

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff could "do the program' and take the next couple days to see the facility, meet staff. review program

methodologies, books and materials and settle in, detoxify and rest. In making this offer, Markham repeated

2

stated NARCONON SC's refund policy different than the printed text in which all fees would be pro-rated and

3

pending Plaintiffs approval after a full review of program books and methodologies and facilities. Plaintiff

4

noted in writing on the Agreement Markham's verbatim verbal promises as 'though pro-rated and pending

5

program review questions' next to the printed refund policy. This page is signed by Plaintiff and Gary Downs

6

and dated November 10, 2005.

7

J 3. Having made the verbatim written notation but unable to complete the entire admission

8

process due to interruptions, staff frustration and Plaintiff's requests, Plaintiff was next surprised to be taken

9

off-site 20 minutes away for medical detoxification. 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 run by NARCONON SC,

Plaintiff instead was being treated by a company offering private residential homes warehousing people

staying with unlicensed medical staff.

14. The next day, on or about the morning of November 11,2005, NARCONON SC through

Markham and Downs demanded completion of the admission interview, Agreement and full payment. After

the initial morning conversation, Plaintiff was contacted by Markham again in the early aftemoon after

securing partial $14,000.00 payment from Plaintiffs family.

15. Despite this large initial 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

securing 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 10 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

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

asked for his necessary daily medications and to speak with a physician. Plaintiffwas denied his daily

2

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

3

medical provider, Doe 3, who, despite not being a physician, was able to offer Plaintiff that medical assistance

4

would be arriving later in the evening.

5

16. Having received medical assistance Plaintiff, despite his state, was ultimately required to fly

6

alone back to Montana to meet the payment demands of NARC ON ON SC. In his attempts to leave, Plaintiffs

7

wallet, keys and other possessions were withheld and he endured abuse and hours of involuntary detainment

8

Doe 4, who ran the detoxification house, and subsequently Gary Dovv'TIS were insistent but could not offer

9

viablle ideas to 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 t1y all the way back to

Montana on or about the evening of Nov em bel' 12, 2005.

17. Plaintiffreturned as promised from Montana via airplane to NARCONON SC on or about

November 14,2005 after hearing from Defendant's that entire payment had been processed. Plaintiff was met

at the airport by Gary Down and again driven to NARCONON SC to finish previously-incomplete admission

paperwork. Plaintiff 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 not be

a problem after the paperwork was complete. Having completed the admission paperwork, Plaintiff'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. Plaintiff spent the next three days and two nights in a two-story residential home run by Doe

5 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 a physician but, contrary to Plaintiffs needs and Defendant's

representations, none was available to manage Plaintiffs 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

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

l7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

each day until medical assistance arrived in the evenings. Days were spent cramped with 7-9 clients and 1-2

2

staff in a normal residential home where smoking, eating, and caffeine drinking coffee and television were

routine rather than recreation and social support, recovery activities, one-on-one counseling or structured grou

3

interaction, or treatment.

4

19. Plaintiff complained and was told by Doe 5, who ran the house, that most find the medical,

5

environmental, social and intellectual promises umnet and are uncomfortable with NARCONON Sc. Plaintiff

6

asked Gary Down to be moved from the house to a different location to begin to 'do the program.' Plaintiff

7

was ultimately moved back to NARCONON SC's Newport Beach location; however, upon doing so, broken

8

promises were just beginning to be realized.

9

20. At NARCONON SC, Plaintiff better understood why so much had been hid from him as he

sat sequestered to a closet office during previous 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 home made into a maze of bunk beds and overrun with teenagers who

routinely were sneaking off to 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 Plaintiffs assigned bedroom. Unlike

promises from the admission staff and signed paperwork, there were no offices for one-an-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-baiting insults

and commands were shouted. Around the tables were globs of clay for apparently SCUlpting images of oneself

while the next person sat with their food brought from the floor below and a TV and movie ran playing in the

comer.

21.

On one of the tables Plaintiff viewed course materials for the first time; he scanned a

workbook of grade-school-like exercises accompanied by another referred to as "Book #1". Inside Book #1

Plaintiff did not find mainstream addiction 12.steps work, psychological treatment methodologies, nor belief

systems based on Christian or other mainstream recognized beliefs. Instead, this was the first time he was

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

stunned to discover Scientology doctrine. Plaintiffhad never been informed of the Scientology-based

2

program; it was never mentioned on Defendant's web site, not stated in admission paperwork and it was

intentionally concealed to deceive Plaintiffand his family.

3

22. Plaintiff asked Doe 6 and Doe 7, who were program converts and identified themselves as

4

"ethics officers," to explain how the Scientology-based program worked. They echoed previous statements of

5

Plaintiff needing to be a 'good student' and 'do the program.' They elaborated that Plaintiffmust complete

6

readings, do the workbook, consume vast amounts of vitamins several times a day, drink "CalMag" drink

7

supplements, take regular multi-hour saunas in a room hidden in the basement, walk and do "TR" exercises

8

including touching and responding to commands by others. Gary Downs appeared and impatiently

9

commanded these were 'student responsibilities' and that I had agreed to 'do the program.' Asking Gary

Downs how the program would educate him, and provide long-term support and promote Plaintiff's Christian

secular beliefs and how my being a • student' was did not rise to Scientology being a 'cult,' Plaintiffwas

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 1 which required Scientology-mandated bull-baiting. At no time

during Plaintiffs 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 left 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. Plaintiff was told to lie in his clothing face down

on a massage table. During the 'assist: 'Scott' touched his hands and body on various limbs and more

awkward parts of Plaintiffs body and stated 'feel my finger; to which Plaintiff stated he was uncomfortable.

Plaintiffs 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 to visit Plaintiffs roommate. Plaintiffs roommate

stated he wanted to leave and go get high and Gary Downs responded with subtle and then more abusive bull-

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

baiting insults and strong-armed ways to convince the roommate otherwise, Gary Downs eventually agreed

and helped Plaintiffs roommate break NARCONON SC own rules and inexplicably obtained heroin from

2

some apparently 'confiscated drugs.' This enticed Plaintiff's roommate to stay longer and allow for more time

3

to 'do the program.'

4

25. Later that evening. staff continued their Scientology Training Routines. Plaintiff was ordered

5

for another walk and returned back to his bedroom for another 'assist' from Scott, Again after awkward

6

touching, Plaintiff was asked to 'name something in the room I could have.' As required, Plaintiff named

7

something and was told to name something else, and then something else. After Plaintiff had named

8

everything in the room, Plaintiff told Scott that was all. Scott said, "I will repeat the command again, name

9

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 including 'Scott', Gary Downs and others who began exhaustive attempts that evening and

through the night to maneuver Plaintiff to stay. They employed Scientology 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 lise a

contraband cell phone to call from a closet to call a 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.

Plaintiffs belongings 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 Plaintiff's remaining belonging except for Plaintiffs electronics. Plaintiffs roommate exited the

building and both were driven quickly away to the rental car agency.

27_

On the way to the rental car agency Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff's credit cards; Gary Downs was

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

admonished and cited by deputies. Gary Downs still inexplicably failed to return all of Defendant's

possessions including a laptop computer and ultimately shipped Defendant's items to him out-of-state some

2

time later after the items were "found." Defendant learned later that an American Express Card was, without

3

Defendant's authorization or signature, charged program fees before being destroyed by Downs.

4

28. Plaintiff was warned by Newport Beach Police Department and especially an Orange County

5

Sheriffs deputies that NARCONON was a "cult" about which they have many problems at and receive many

6

complaints about. One deputy subsequently offered to pay tor a hotel near the airport and then drove Plaintiff

7

there. At the hotel Plaintiff was ultimately able to contact family and arrange for money for a flight home the

8

next morning to escape from NARCONON sc.

9

29. Plaintiffs 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

FlRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract)

30. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though fully hereinafter set forth at

length, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 29.

31. Plaintiff and 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 access to

----------------------

10

11

12

13

1

Page 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

medica! care by qualified physicians when necessary, and a safe, recreational environment. Defendant's

website also states these same benefits.

2

32. Defendants materially breached this Agreement when they refused to provide the services as

3

promised under an Agreement and refused to refund the money paid according to verbatim written notations

4

on the admission agreement and as promised by Defendants' representative Gary Downs and Bob Markham.

5

33. Plaintiff has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on its part to be

6

performed according to its Agreement with Defendants.

7

34. Defendant's breaches have caused Plaintiff past, present, and future damages, an amount to be

8

proved at trial.

9

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion)

35.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though fully hereinafter set forth at

length. each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 34.

36.

As a 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

15 notations contained on the Agreement. Yet. through the direction of Defendants' agents, Defendant(s)

16 converted for itself or themselves the money due to Plaintiff by refusing to issue a refund to Plaintiff.

17 Defendant also charged Defendant's credit card without authorization, signature or without Plaintiffs

18 knowledge or direction.

19

20

37.

Plaintiff never consented to, approved, waived or ratified any such conversion by Defendants.

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 Plaintiffs funds in order to further their

23 personal business interests while ignoring Plaintiff's repeated refund demands.

24

25

26

40.

Plaintiffhas been damaged by such conversion.

10

11

12

13

1

Page 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud In The Inducement)

2

41.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully

3

set forth in the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 40 herein.

4

42.

When Defendants, through their respective employees, made representations to Plaintiff that

5

Plaintiff would receive individualized therapy, case management, and 24-houraccess to a medical doctor

6

during his stay at Defendants' facilities, 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.

9

43.

When Defendants entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants knew that they in

fact would use this arrangement to keep for themselves Plaintiffs $24,000.00, regardless of whether Plaintiff

was ever to receive the services promised to him and Plaintiff: and concealed this information from Plaintiff

and his family.

44.

At the time these representations were made, and at the time it took the actions herein alleged,

14 Plaintiffwas ignorant of the falsity of the Defendants' representations.

15

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.

17

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

1 9 was _i ust i f ed and reasonab Ie because of his bel ief that Defendant was making representations to Plai ntiff fairly,

20 honestly and in good faith, and because there was nothing that led Plaintiff to believe that the

21 Defendants would defraud and exploit Plaintiff

22

47.

As a proximate result of Defendants' fraud and deceit, and the facts alleged herein, Plaintiff

23 has been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial.

24

48.

Tn doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, willfully, maliciously,

25 oppressively, and with callous and intentional disregard of Plaintiffs interests, and subjected Plaintiff to unjust

26

10

11

12

1

In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted out their fraudulent misrepresentations

13 would use this arrangement to keep for themselves Plaintiffs $24,000.00 paid, regardless of whether Plaintiff

hardship, knowing that Defendants' conduct was substantially likely to damage Plaintiff. As a result of

2

Defendants' conduct. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

3

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Misrepresentation)

4

49.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully set forth the

5

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48 herein.

6

50.

When Defendants made multiple representations that Plaintiff would, among other things,

7

receive individualized conventional addiction and psychological therapy, secular belief support, one-on-one

8

counseling from licensed professionals. education, group sessions and 24-hour access to a medical doctor

9

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 intentto induce Plaintiff 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

14 was ever to receive the services promised, and concealed this information from Plaintiff and family,

15

52.

At the time these representations were made, and at the time he took the actions herein

16 alleged. Plaintiff was ignorant of the falsity of the Defendants' representations and Defendant's intentionally

17 hid their Scientology-based methodologies. ln reliance upon these representations and hidden methodologies,

18 Plaintiff was induced to enter into an Agreement with Defendants promising the services set forth therein.

19

53.

Plaintiffs' reliance on the Defendants' representations was justified and reasonable because of

20 its bel ief that Defendants were making representations to Plaintiff fairly, honestly and in good faith, and

21 because there was nothing that led Plaintiff to believe that the Defendants would defraud and exploit Plaintiff.

22 Had Plaintiff known the actual facts, Plaintiff would not have entered into any such Agreement.

23

54.

As a proximate result of Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations and deceit, and the facts

24 alleged herein, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial.

25

55.

26 willfully, maliciously, oppressively, and with callous and intentional disregard of Plaintiffs interests, and

Page 12

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10

1

Page 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

11 known that they in fact would use this arrangement to keep for themselves Plaintiff's $24,000.00, regardless of

subjected Plaintiffto unjust hardship, knowing that Defendants' conduct was substantially likely to damage

2

Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

12 whether Plaintiff was ever to receive the services promised to him and Plaintiff, and concealed this information

3

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Misrepresentation)

4

56.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully set forth the

5 allegations contained in paragraphs I through 55 herein.

6

57.

When Defendants made multiple representations to Plaintiff that he would receive

7 individualized therapy, drug education, group therapy and 24-houl' access to a medical doctor during his stay at

8 Defendants' facilities, Defendants knew or should have known them to be false, and thereby induced Plaintiff

9 to purchase the services Plaintiff and his family were promised.

58.

When Defendants entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants knew or should have

13 from Plaintiff and family. Because of Defendants' negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiff suffered substantial

14 damages.

15

59.

Defendants had a duty to disclose facts they knew OJ' should have known would materially

16 and adversely affect Plaintiffs decision to enter into the Agreement with Defendants, and breached this duty.

17 Defendants are therefore liable for Plaintiffs damages proximately caused by their negligent

18 misrepresentation.

19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq. - Fraudulent Acts or Practices)

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

60. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully set forth the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 59 herein.

61. California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. prohibits 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.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1

Page 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19 (Violation of Heath Privacy due California Civil Code §56.10 and Health & Safety Code §123110)

20

62. When Defendants, through its employees, made representations to Plaintiff that Plaintiff

2

would receive individualized therapy, case management, and 24-hour access to a medical doctor during his

3

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

4

Plaintiff and his family were promised. Defendants statements above were likely to deceive, and did in fact

5

deceive, Plaintiff, proximately causing substantial damages and injury to Plaintiff.

6

63. Defendants' verbal representations under the Agreement that Plaintiff would receive a 'pro-

7

rated' refund upon were made to deceive, and did in fact deceive, Plaintlff proximately causing substantial

8

damages and injury to Plaintiff.

9

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, regardless of whether Plaintiff was entitled

to a refund as verbally represented and notated on the admission agreement, and concealed this information

from Plaintiff. Instead, Defendant's attempted strategy involved Plaintiff signing Defendants' form agreements

containing contrary terms.

65. Defendants' verbal representations notated on the admissions agreement that Plaintiff would

receive a refund if entitled to a refund were likely to deceive, and did in fact deceive, Plaintiff, proximately

causing substantial damages and injury to Plaintiff.

66. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to relief under Business and Professions Code § 17200 er seq.

67.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference as though more fully set forth the

21 allegations contained in paragraphs I through 66 herein.

22

68.

California Civil Code §56.1 0, et seq. provides in subdivision (a) that, "No provider of health

23 care, health care service plan, or contractor shall disclose medical information regarding a patient of the

24 provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining an

25 authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (cj.'

26

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

1

For costs of suit in this action: and

Page 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

69. When Defendants, through its employees and particularly their refund coordinator June

Rosenberry, disclosed Plaintiffs medical condition and other protected health information and records to

2

American Express, Defendants intentional and knowingly did so in violation of California Civil Code §56.1 O.

3

Such disclosure was not permissible by subdivisions (b) or (c) of California Civil Code §56.10 et seq.

4

70. When Defendants, through its employee Bob Markham and others, charged Plaintiffs credit

5

card without Defendant's authorization, knowledge or signature, Defendants knowingly violated Plaintiff's

6

privacy by disclosing protected medical information. Defendant's induced American Express to charge for

7

services that Defendant knew did not meet the representations and promises made to Plaintiff with the express

8

purpose of proximately defrauding and deceiving Plaintiff.

9

71. California Health and Safety Code § 123 J 10, et seq. provides, in part, that a" ... patient or

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

Plaintiffs heath privacy by wrongfully recognizing Plaintiff's credit card company, American Express, as a

representative to disclose Plaintiffs medical records. Defendant did so for the 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 Plaintiffs credit card company American Express, and therefore violated Defendant's health

privacy rights and proximately caused substantial damages and injury to Plaintiff.

73. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to relief for violation of health privacy under both California

Civil Code §56.1 0 et seq. and under Californian Health and Safety Code § 123110 et seq.

22 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants. and each of them, as follows:

23

24

25

26

74.

For damages in the amount of $24,000.00 plus interest at the legal rate;

75.

For punitive damages as allowed by law;

76.

For reasonable attorneys' fees in amount to be determined at trial:

77.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Page 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

78. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2

I"'"

Signed~--n ~ Marthe ~h;7 Plaintiff In Pro Per

P.O. Box 1635

Veradale, WA 99037-1635 509-868-0955 (phone/fax)

J

Dated: Janual)~O 1 0

4

5

6

7

8

9